ARIZONA

Keyword Search

RESULTS

461 Total Items
Arizona
“No Fault” Auto Insurance; Choice
Proposition 203
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 14.9%)
Topic Areas:
Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
Relating to insurance; establishing a consumer choice in motor vehicle insurance system which offers a choice of coverage against losses from personal injury and property damage arising out of the operation or use of motor vehicles; prescribing a twenty percent reduction in rates; abolishing tort liability in certain cases; prescribing definitions; prescribing insurance requirements; prescribing the geographic application of personal protection policies; prescribing persons who are not entitled to personal protection benefits; prescribing the payment of personal protection benefits; prescribing procedures when two or more coverages apply; prescribing the priority of benefits; prescribing sources of indemnity; prescribing legal liability; prescribing the right to choose to remain in the tort system…

[S]


50 Percent Renewable Energy Standard by 2030 Amendment
Proposition 127
Election:
General

2018

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 31.1%)
Topic Areas:
Energy & Electric Utilities | Environmental Protection

Summary: Click for Summary
The measure requires that electric utilities acquire 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by the year 2030 with the percent required steadily increasing each year.


A Constitutional Amendment that would Allow the Legislature to Specify Effective Dates for Some Laws
Proposition 100
Election:
General

1996

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.8%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Legislative enactments are not normally effective for 90 days after the close of the legislative session. The 90-day delay does not apply in the case of (1) emergency laws, (2) laws that appropriate money for the “support and maintenance” of state agencies and institutions and (3) laws that increase taxes and fees. The Arizona Constitution provides that those three kinds of laws become effective immediately when the Governor signs the law into effect. Proposition 100 would amend the Arizona Constitution to give the Legislature the option of designating other effective dates for these three kinds of laws beside the date the Governor signs them.


Abolish Contract System on State Construction, Amending Initiative Measure of 1914
Unknown5
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.3%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Abolishing Corporation Commission
Unknown5
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.4%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Absolute Divorce
Unknown12
Election:
General

1916

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.8%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Agriculture, Cooperative Associations
Unknown8
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.2%)
Topic Areas:
Agriculture

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Aircraft: License Tax On
Unknown1
Election:
General

1964

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 74.0%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Allocates Lottery Revenues for Health Programs
Proposition 203
Election:
General

1996

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.0%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Education: Higher Ed | Gambling & Lotteries | Health | Human Services | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 203 would make more low-income persons eligible to receive health care under the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), the state’s health care system for the poor. For most AHCCCS recipients, the federal government pays 65% of the costs of health care and the state pays 35% of these costs. Currently, there are many eligibility categories that determine whether an individual can receive health care under AHCCCS, including one that requires that a recipient’s net income not exceed approximately 34% of the “federal poverty level”. If Proposition 203 passes, people who earn up to 100% of the federal poverty level will qualify to receive health care under AHCCCS.



Proposition 203 sets aside $17 million each year from lottery revenues to fund six health and nutrition programs. Proposition 203 would allocate the $17 million as follows:

(1) $5 million would go to the Healthy Families program, which provides services to prevent child abuse and neglect and to promote child wellness and proper development;

(2) $4 million would go to the Arizona Health Education System to provide scholarships to medical students who agree to practice in areas of the state that are currently underserved by health care professionals;

(3) $3 million would go to programs to prevent teenage pregnancy;

(4) $2 million would go for disease control research;

(5) $2 million would go to Health Start, a program that aims to reduce the incidence of low birth weight babies and childhood diseases and to educate families on the importance of good nutrition and preventative health care for their children; and

(6) $1 million would go to the Women, Infants and Children Food program.



Currently, lottery revenues are earmarked for deposit in economic development, local transportation assistance and two state heritage funds. If Proposition 203 passes, the $17 million would be distributed only after the economic development, local transportation assistance and heritage funds receive their full appropriations. If Proposition 203 does not pass, all lottery revenues remaining after these appropriations will continue to be deposited in the state general fund.

[S]


Allow the State to Exchange State Trust Land for Public or Private Lands
Proposition 102
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.7%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
In 1910, Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act that authorized the residents of the Territory of Arizona to form a state government. One provision of the Enabling Act granted the new state millions of acres of land to be held in trust to support various public institutions (schools, colleges, penitentiaries, etc.). Congress allowed Arizona to sell or lease the land only under very specific conditions. The new State Constitution explicitly incorporated the Enabling Act restrictions on the disposal of trust lands.



Through the years Congress has amended the Enabling Act to allow Arizona more flexibility in managing and disposing of trust land. In the 1930s two acts of Congress authorized the state to exchange trust land for other public or private lands. However, the state never amended its constitution to incorporate that authority for land exchanges, but the state did enact statutes to provide for exchanges of trust land. Since that time the State Land Department, acting under the statutory authorization, has exchanged more than 2 million acres of land with the federal government and several hundred thousand acres with private landowners.



In March 1990 the State Supreme Court determined that without amending the State Constitution the Legislature had no power to authorize public land exchanges by statute. The State Land Department has halted its land exchange activities. The effect of Proposition 102 will be to allow the State Land Department to resume state trust land exchanges.



If approved, Proposition 102 will amend the State Constitution to permit exchanges of state trust land for other public or private lands if (1) the exchange is in the best interest of the state land trust, (2) the other land is at least equal in value to the state land (as determined by at least two independent appraisals), and (3) the purpose of the exchange is to consolidate state land holdings or to transfer or acquire land for public purposes, including environmental protection. A land exchange would be governed by procedures, conditions and restrictions enacted by the Legislature. Exchanges of state land for federal land would also be subject to any additional restrictions imposed by the federal government.


Allowing Pima and Maricopa Counties to Choose a Charter Form of Government
Proposition 105
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.3%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
If approved, Proposition 105 will amend the Arizona Constitution to allow counties with a population of more than 500,000 people, namely Maricop and Pima Counties, upon affirmative vote of the county voters, to establish a “charter” form of self-government. Once approved by a majority of the county voters, the charter would allow the county to enact ordinances to govern its own local concerns. Under present constitutional mandates, a county must first get the Arizona Legislature to pass a state law to allow the county to address specific local problems.



Proposition 105, once approved by statewide vote, requires two separate public countywide votes to implement county charter government, each of which must be favorably decided by the majority of voters. First, there must be a countywide vote on pursuing charter proceedings and to elect charter committee members who will draft the charter. Once the charter has been agreed upon by the elected charter committee and published, ther must then be a final countywide vote to approve the charter, and if the proposed charter contains taxation authority or would abolish or change current county elected officers to appointed officers, such proposals owuld have to be voted on as separate questions from the vote to approve the rest of the charter. Later amendments to the charter would also have to be approved by county voters.



Proposition 105 also permits county voters to include in their charter a broad grant of powers over matters of local county concern that are not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of this state. Charter counties would continue to be a political subdivision of the state and subject to state laws and mandates. A conflicting provision of a city charter within the county would prevail over the conflicting county charter in matters of strictly city concern.



Proposition 105 also would permit county voters to include in a charter a limited taxation authority only if authorized by voter approval by a separate line-item vote at the charter election. Any charter county taxes levied would be subject to existing tax and expenditure limitations of the Arizona Constitution and would have to be uniform for the area served. Any sales or use tax imposed must be consistent with the state sales and use tax laws and would be limited to a total of two percent when combined with existing other county excise taxes permitted by state law. A county charter may also permit the county to charge limited fees for county products and services to cover current or future actual costs.


Amend the Constitution Adding Rules Relating to Public Retirement Systems
Proposition 100
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.4%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Prop. 100 would amend the Arizona Constitution to include specific rules that apply to public retirement systems in this state. Public retirement systems have public employee members such as teachers, state, county and city workers, police officers, fire fighters, correctional officers, university and community college staff and faculty, judges and elected officials. The rules contained in Prop. 100 are consistent with current law and practices.


Amend the Constitution Relating to Commission on Salaries for Elected State Offices
Proposition 101
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.1%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Prop. 101 would amend the Arizona Constitution to increase the salary commission membership from 5 to 11 members; commission recommends salaries for elective state officers every 2 years, beginning in 1999; commission recommendations become final, including legislators’ salary recommendation, unless Legislature or the people place referendum on salary recommendations on the general election ballot.


Amend the Constitution Relating to Initiative and Referendum
Proposition 104
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.4%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
Would amend the Arizona Constitution relating to initiative and referendum measures; prohibit governor’s veto; prohibit legislative repeal for five years; require two-thirds vote to repeal, amend, substantively modify or transfer funds designated by measure; allow governor to veto bill amending measure; require three-fourths vote to override veto; prohibit “emergency” clauses on amendments.


Amend the Constitution Relating to Initiative and Referendum
Proposition 105
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 52.3%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
Would amend the Arizona Constitution relating to initiative and referendum measures; prohibit governor’s veto; prohibits legislative repeal; require three-fourths vote to amend measure, to supersede measure, or to transfer funds designated by the measure, and only if each furthers the purpose of the measure.

[CA]


Amend the Constitution Relating to Investment of State Trust funds
Proposition 102
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.3%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | Budgets | Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Would amend the Arizona Constitution to expand investment options for State Trust funds, allowing investment in equity securities, such as stocks. The Board of Investments would manage funds under conditions set out in the Constitution; require investment according to “The Prudent Investor Rule;” permit certain payments out of permanent funds to designated state institutions.


Amend the Constitution Relating to Voting in Primary Elections
Proposition 103
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.5%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow voters registered as independents, no party designation, or members of a party without ballot recognition to vote in the partisan primary of the choice of one of the four currently recognized political parties.


Amending the Arizona Constitution to Allow the State to Exchange State Trust Land for Public or Private Land for Certain Purposes
Proposition 101
Election:
General

1994

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.7%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
If approved, Proposition 101 will amend the State Constitution to permit exchanges of state trust land for other public or private lands if (1) the exchange is in the best interest of the state land trust, (2) the other land is at least equal in value to the state land (as determined by at least two independent appraisals) and (3) the purpose of the exchange is to consolidate state land holdings or to transfer or acquire land for public purposes, including environmental protection. A land exchange would be governed by procedures, conditions and restrictions enacted by the Legislature. Exchanges of state land for federal land would also be subject to any additional restrictions imposed by the federal government.



In 1910, Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act that authorized the residents of the Territory of Arizona to form a state government. One provision of the Enabling Act granted the new state millions of acres of land to be held in trust to support various public institutions (schools, colleges, penitentiaries, etc.). Congress allowed Arizona to sell or lease the land only under very specific conditions. The State Constitution explicitly incorporated the Enabling Act restrictions on the disposal of trust lands.



Through the years Congress has amended the Enabling Act to allow Arizona more flexibility in managing and disposing of trust land. In the 1930’s two acts of Congress authorized the state to exchange trust land for other public or private lands. However, the state never amended its constitution to incorporate that authority for land exchanges, but the state did enact statutes to provide for exchanges of trust land. Since that time the State Land Department, acting under the statutory authorization, has periodically exchanged state land with the federal government and with private landowners.



In 1990 the State Supreme Court determined that without amending the State Constitution the state cannot conduct land exchanges. The State Land Department has halted its land exchange activities. The effect of Proposition 101 will allow the State Land Department to resume state trust land exchanges. The department’s ongoing trust land lease and sale programs would continue.


Amending the Arizona Constitution to Create the Office of Lieutenant Governor for the Term Beginning in 1999
Proposition 100
Election:
General

1994

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.7%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 100 would amend the Arizona Constitution to create the office of Lieutenant Governor. The Lieutenant Governor would be first in the order of succession to the office of Governor and would step in to serve as Governor if the Governor died, resigned, was removed from office or was permanently unable to serve. The Secretary of State is currently first in the order of succession and would be moved down one step in priority. In addition, the Lieutenant Governor would act as Governor on days when the Governor is out of the state. Other specific responsibilities of the Lieutenant Governor and the issue of salary are not included in this proposition.



A candidate for Lieutenant Governor would be from the same political party and would run as a team with a candidate for Governor in both the primary and the general elections. A voter would cast a single ballot for the “team” in each election. If the office of Lieutenant Governor became vacant after an election, the Governor would name a person from the same political party to be the Lieutenant Governor, if approved by the State Senate.



The Lieutenant Governor would serve a four-year term (the same term of office as the Governor) and would be subject to the same term limits that are imposed on other top state elected officials.


Amending the Arizona Constitution to Eliminate the Provisions Prohibiting the Legislature from Restricting the Recovery of Damages for Personal Injuries, the Consideration of Certain Defenses by a Jury, and the Amount of Damages Recoverable for Death or I
Proposition 103
Election:
General

1994

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 39.4%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
The Constitution of Arizona provides that no law limiting or prohibiting the right to sue for death or injury and no law limiting the amount of money to be recovered can be enacted. The Constitution of Arizona also provides that in a lawsuit the jury determines all questions relating to the legal defense of “contributory negligence” or “assumption of risk”.



Proposition 103 would amend the Constitution of Arizona to:



1. Allow the Legislature or the people to enact laws that could limit or prohibit a person from bringing a lawsuit to recover money or benefits for injuries;



2. Allow the Legislature or the people to enact laws that could limit the amount of money or benefits a person could recover for death or personal injuries, and



3. Allow the Legislature or the people to enact laws that could remove the defense of “contributory negligence” or “assumption of risk” from the consideration of a jury.

[CA]


Amending the Arizona Constitution to Provide a Personal Property Tax Exemption for Livestock, Poultry, Aquatic Animals Owned by a Person Primarily Involved in Agricultural Production
Proposition 102
Election:
General

1994

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.7%)
Topic Areas:
Agriculture | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 102 would amend the Constitution of Arizona to provide that a person who owns livestock, poultry, aquatic animals or honeybees would be exempt from paying property taxes on the animals if the person is principally engaged in agriculture.



Under current law, these animals are subject to property tax and are assessed at 8% of their valuation.



This proposition would allow the Legislature to set conditions, such as requiring owners to send in reports and other information, to qualify for the exemption. The Legislature could also define the categories of exempt animals to include or exclude specific species.


An Act Imposing a Time Limit for Filing Certain Lawsuits; Changing the Collateral Source Rule; Creating Insurer Rights of Recovery; Creating Governmental and other Immunities; Permitting Certain Defenses that Bar Recovery
Proposition 300
Election:
General

1994

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.2%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 300 allows the voters to approve or disapprove the provisions protecting private property rights contained in section 1 of Senate Bill 1053 that was passed by the Legislature in 1992. If Proposition 300 passes, section 1 will become law. This proposition would not change the existing law on whether or how much a property owner should be paid as compensation for a governmental action.



Under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Arizona, the government may not take private property for public purposes without compensating the property owner. Courts have said that a taking may occur even when the government doesn’t acquire title to the property. Some regulations restricting the use of property may be found so restrictive that they really take the property. Proposition 300 would require state agencies, before a taking results, to examine their activities, including rules and other regulatory actions that affect the use of property, to determine if the action requires compensation from the state.



The agency’s review would have to include consideration of the principles and standards contained in Proposition 300 and guidelines adopted by the State Attorney General, including an analysis of potential costs of, and alternatives to, the proposed action. An agency may take action to protect the public health or safety, but only if the agency has specifically identified the particular risk involved and has determined that the agency’s proposed action is no more than is necessary to address that risk.



Under Proposition 300 the State Attorney General would adopt guidelines to help state agencies to determine the kinds of activities that might require compensating the property owner under the Constitution. The Attorney General would then determine whether the guidelines apply to a proposed action.



After reviewing each proposed action and before taking the action, the state agency would submit the review to the Governor and the Legislature.

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of approving the Legislature’s bill.

A “no” vote shall have the effect of not approving the legislature’s bill.


An act Imposing a Time Limit for Filing Certain Lawsuits; Changing the Collateral Source Rule; Creating Insurer Rights of Recovery; Creating Governmental and Other Immunities; Permitting Certain Defenses that Bar Recovery
Proposition 301
Election:
General

1994

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.1%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 301 allows the voters to approve or disapprove sections 2, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 28 and parts of section 5 and 6 of Senate Bill 1055 that was passed by the Legislature in 1993. If Propositions 301 passes, these sections will become law.



Proposition 301 would amend laws regulating lawsuits as follows:



1. Proposition 301 requires that a person begin a lawsuit within 12 years after the claim comes into existence unless another person fraudulently prevented the discovery of the claim during the 12 year period, unless otherwise provided by law.



2. Proposition 301 allows a person who is sued to show that the person bringing the suit has already received or may receive money for the damages claimed at trial. This evidence can be considered in determining the amount that can be recovered in the trial.



3. Proposition 301 allows insurance companies and other entities providing health care coverage to agree with the policyholders that medical expenses arising out of accidents shall only be paid once.



4. Proposition 301 defines the standard for finding public entities liable for maintenance or operation of highways, roads, streets, bridges or rights-of-way.



5. Proposition 301 permits a jury to deny a claim by a person who is 50% or more at fault for the injury.



6. Proposition 301 provides that, on request by either party, the judge may allow installment payments for future health care costs and lost earnings.

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of approving the Legislature’s bill.

A “no” vote shall have the effect of not approving the legislature’s bill.


An Act Prohibiting the Use of Leghold Traps, Instant Kill Body Gripping Traps, Poisons or Snares to Take Wildlife on Any Public Land, but not Affecting Hunting or Fishing
Proposition 201
Election:
General

1994

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.5%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 201 would make it illegal to use certain methods of taking “wildlife” on public land, including federal, state, county and municipal land. The listed devices that would be prohibited are “any leghold trap, any instant kill body gripping design trap, or by a poison or a snare”. This proposition would not prohibit:



1. The use of a prohibited device by a governmental health department for health and safety protection and surveillance.



2. Legal hunting or fishing with authorized weapons, fishing equipment or other “implements in hand”.



3. Falconry.



4. Using snares, traps that are not designed to kill and nets for scientific research or regulated wildlife relocation.



5. Using poisons and nets for regulated aquatic wildlife management.



6. Using traps and poisons to control non-furbearing rodents.



Arizona law defines the term “wildlife” as all wild mammals, wild birds and their nests and eggs, reptiles, amphibians, mollusks, crustaceans and fish, including their eggs and spawn. (ARS section 17-101.)



These restrictions and conditions would not apply to activities on private property.

[S]


An Act Relating to a Campaign Finance Funding and Reporting System
Proposition 200
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.2%)
Topic Areas:
Ethics/Lobbying/Campaign Finance

Summary: Click for Summary
Would establish a five-member commission to administer additional alternative campaign financing system; provide public funding and additional reporting for participating candidates; reduce current contribution limits by 20% for non-participating candidates; set personal monies and spending limits for participating candidates; limit private contributions for participating candidates unless Commission declares emergency.

[S]


An Act Relating to Creating a Federal Candidates’ IRS Pledge
Proposition 202
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.0%)
Topic Areas:
Elections | Federal Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Would give Arizona candidates for federal offices the option to pledge to support and vote for elimination of the federal income tax and Internal Revenue Service through the passage of a national consumption tax; permit “Signed the IRS Elimination Pledge” to be shown on the ballot next to pledging candidates’ names.

[S]


An Act Relating to Creating the Crime of Cockfighting
Proposition 201
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 68.1%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Would make cockfighting a Class 5 felony for knowingly owning, possessing, keeping or training a cock for cockfighting; cause any cock to fight or injure another cock for amusement or gain, or allowing cockfighting on a person’s property; make it a Class 1 misdemeanor for being present at a cockfight.

[S]


An Act Relating to Wildlife Management and the Taking of Wildlife on Public Lands
Proposition 200
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.0%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 200 begins with a “Declaration of Policy” that cites the recreational and wildlife values associated with public land in Arizona and states that “the leghold trap, and other devices” cannot be tolerated and that the people of Arizona “desire to manage our wildlife and protect our property by humane and nonlethal methods.”



Proposition 200 would make it illegal to use certain methods of taking wildlife on state, county, municipal and public lands and property. The listed devices that would be prohibited are “any leghold trap, and conibear style trap…, any snare, explosive, poison stupefying substance, flammable or pyrotechnic device.” This restriction, in section 2 of the proposition, should not prohibit:

1. Regulated hunting or fishing with guns or other “implements of hand.”

2. Using snares, stupefying substances or nets to temporarily detain wildlife for scientific research projects or studies or for relocation.

3. The use of poisons or stupefying substances by the state game and fish department to manage aquatic wildlife.

4. The use of a prohibited device when a county or city board of health or local health department determines it necessary to protect human health and safety.



The protected animals would include all wild mannals, wild birds and their nests and eggs, reptiles, amphibians, mollusks, crustaceans and fish, including their eggs and spawn.



These restrictions and conditions would only apply to activities on federal, state and other public property. They would not apply to activities on private property.

[S]


An Act Requiring an Increase in State Tax on Cigarettes, Cigars and Other Tobacco Products, to Provide Health Care to the Medically Indigent or Needy, or Low Income Children, Tobacco Related Education and Research
Proposition 200
Election:
General

1994

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.8%)
Topic Areas:
Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Health | State-Tribal Relations | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 200 proposes to increase the state tax on cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products and use the additional revenue generated for health care and for education and research related to preventing and reducing tobacco use.



The money that would be collected from the additional tax rates would be apportioned automatically, without legislative appropriation, review or approval and used exclusively as follows:



70%: Providing medical and health care services to persons who are indigent, who are medically needy or who are low-income children including, but not limited to, offering preventive care or treating catastrophic illness or injury through the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) or any successor or substantially similar program. This money would supplement, and not replace, current levels of state funding.



23%: Programs to prevent and reduce tobacco use through public health education programs, including, but not limited to, community based education, cessation, evaluation and other programs to discourage tobacco use. This money would supplement, and not replace, current levels of state funding.



5%: Research into preventing and treating tobacco-related disease and addiction.



Up to 2%: Prisons and other correctional facilities to compensate for reductions in current tobacco tax funding caused by less tobacco use due to the new higher taxes. Any amount not needed for this purpose would be divided equally among the other three categories.



Proposition 200 would also impose a state tax on cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products purchased on Indian reservations (unless sold by the tribe or a licensed Indian trader to an enrolled member of that tribe). The state tax would be at the same rate as the new, additional rates set by this Proposition for off-reservation purchases, less the amount of any applicable tribal tax.

[S]


Annuities, Disabled and Blind
Unknown1
Election:
General

1944

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 22.6)
Topic Areas:
Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Appellate and Trial Court Appointments
Proposition 100
Election:
General

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.9%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary | Legislatures | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1009 – Ordered placed on the ballot as five separate questions by the attorney general in responses to a question propounded by the governor.

An amendment relating to commissions on appellate and trial court appointments and terms; requiring that the advice and consent of the senate to certain commission appointments by the governor be given “in the manner prescribed by law.”

[Constitutional Amendment]


Arizona Minimum Wage Act
Proposition 202
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.4%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



Based on the federal law, the current minimum wage in Arizona is $5.15 per hour.



Proposition 202 would establish a state minimum wage law and raise the minimum wage to $6.75 per hour beginning January 1, 2007. The state minimum wage would be increased each January 1 for changes in the cost of living.



The new state minimum wage law would apply to all employers except:



1. Any person who is employed by a parent or a sibling.



2. A person who is employed performing babysitting services in the employer’s home on a casual basis.



3. Employees who regularly receive tips and who are otherwise exempt under federal minimum wage law.



4. The State of Arizona government. But political subdivisions of this state would have to comply with the state minimum wage law.



5. The United States government.



6. A business that has less than $500,000 in gross annual revenue and that is exempt from having to pay a minimum wage under federal law.



Proposition 202 also contains employer notice and record keeping requirements and enforcement and civil penalty provisions. The Legislature, a county, a city or a town may enact a law providing for a higher minimum wage than established by this proposition.



FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT



State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal impact of certain ballot measures. The State may receive additional revenues in the form of civil penalties from violators of the provisions of Proposition 202. The state Industrial Commission will have responsibility to enforce these provisions. The civil penalties may be retained by the agency that recovered them and used to finance enforcement of the proposition. The total amount of civil penalties will depend on the level of compliance, which is difficult to predict in advance.



An increase in wages may also have an economic impact on state and local revenue collections and state spending. By increasing wages and business costs, the proposition may affect individual income tax, corporate income tax and sale tax collections. In addition, a minimum wage increase may affect participation in, and the cost of, public assistance programs. It is difficult to predict the impacts of the proposition on either state revenues or spending in advance.

[S]


Arizona State University Name Change from Arizona State College
Unknown3
Election:
General

1958

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.8%)
Topic Areas:
Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Arizona Sweepstakes Lottery, Education and Tax Reduction
Unknown6
Election:
General

1970

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 25.3%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Gambling & Lotteries | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act
Proposition 200
Election:
General

2004

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.6%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Elections | Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 200 would require that evidence of United States citizenship be presented by every person to register to vote, that proof of identification be presented by every voter at the polling place prior to voting, that state and local governments verify the identity of all applicants for certain public benefits and that government employees report United States immigration law violations by applicants for public benefits.



Proposition 200 provides that for purposes of registering to vote, satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship includes:

– an Arizona driver or nonoperating identification license issued after October 1, 1996.

– a driver or nonoperating identification license issued by another state if the license indicates that the person has provided proof of United States citizenship.

– a copy of the applicant’s birth certificate.

– a United States passport, or a copy of the pertinent pages of the passport.

– United States naturalization documents or a verified certificate of naturalization number.

– a Bureau of Indian Affairs card number, tribal treaty card number or tribal enrollment number.

– other documents or methods of proof that may be established by the federal government for the purpose of verifying employment eligibility.



The county recorder shall indicate this information in the person’s permanent voter file for at least two years. A voter registration card from another county or state does not constitute satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship. A person who is registered to vote on the date that Proposition 200 becomes effective is not required to submit evidence of citizenship unless the person moves to a different county. Once a person has submitted sufficient evidence of citizenship, the person is not required to resubmit the evidence when making changes to voter registration information in the county where the evidence has been submitted.



Proposition 200 requires that prior to receiving a ballot at a polling place, a voter must present either one form of identification that contains the name, address and photograph of the person or two different forms of identification that contain the name and address of the person.



Proposition 200 requires that a state or local governmental entity that is responsible for administering “state and local public benefits that are not federally mandated” must:

– verify the identity and eligibility for each applicant for the public benefits.

– provide other state and local government employees with information to verify immigration status of applicants applying for public benefits and must also assist other state and local government employees in obtaining immigration status information from federal immigration authorities.

– refuse to accept any state or local government identification card, including a driver license, to establish identity or eligibility for public benefits unless the governmental entity that issued the card has verified the immigration status of the applicant.

– require all state and local government employees to make a written report to federal immigration authorities upon discovering a violation of federal immigration laws by an applicant for public benefits. An employee or supervisor who fails to make the required report is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor, potentially punishable by a jail sentence of up to 4 months and a fine of up to $750, plus applicable surcharges.



Any resident of this state would have standing to bring a court action against the state, a local governmental entity or an agent of a state or local governmental entity to remedy a violation of the public benefits verification law including bringing an action to compel a government official to comply with the law.



Proposition 200 does not define the term “state and local public benefits that are not federally mandated”.


Arizona Title Law, Repeal
Unknown7
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 36.9%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Arizona Voter Reward Act
Proposition 200
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 33.42%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL:



Proposition 200 would establish a $1,000,000 prize to be awarded to a randomly selected person who voted in the primary or general election. Anyone who voted in the primary or general election would be automatically entered in the drawing for the prize money, and if a person voted in both the primary and the general election, that person’s name would be entered twice in the drawing.



Proposition 200 would provide money for the cash prize by transferring unclaimed lottery winnings into a separate Voter Reward Fund, to be overseen by the Arizona State Lottery Commission. Money would be awarded every two years, after each statewide general election is held. If there is sufficient money, the commission could establish additional prizes for the drawings.



Under Proposition 200, county voter registration and election officials would provide a list of numbers for the drawing with each number designating a person who voted in the primary or general election. The drawing would be conducted in public, with only the name of the winner disclosed. The winner could also refuse the prize money, and no name would be disclosed.



Proposition 200 would apply for statewide primary and general elections held in 2006 and later.



FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT



State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal impact of certain ballot measures. The Voter Reward Fund would receive 20% of unclaimed lottery prizes under Proposition 200. Based on a 5-year average, this amount is estimated to be approximately $1.5 million per fiscal year. The unclaimed prize monies are otherwise used to supplement prizes paid to winners of Arizona Lottery games. Up to 7% of the Voter Reward Fund is available for administration.

[S]


Assessment; by Owner
Unknown12
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.0%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.

[S]


Authorizing Indebtedness for Cities & Towns to Acquire Land for Parks
Unknown6
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.6%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Auto Tax Exemption
Unknown6
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 35.1%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Auto Tax Reduction
Unknown5
Election:
General

1926

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 21.2%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Bailable Offenses
Proposition 100
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 77.9%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



The Arizona Constitution provides that all persons who are charged with a crime are eligible for bail, subject to certain exceptions. Bail is not allowed for any person who is charged with a crime if the court finds proof that the person committed the crime is evident or the presumption that the person committed the crime is great and the charged crime is one of the following:



1. A capital offense (an offense punishable by death), sexual assault, sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen years of age or molestation of a child under fifteen years of age.



2. A felony offense committed when the person charged is already admitted to bail on a separate felony charge.



3. A felony offense if the person charged poses a substantial danger to any other person or the community and no condition of release will reasonably assure the safety of the other person or community.



Proposition 100 would amend the Arizona Constitution to additionally prohibit bail for any person who is charged with a serious felony offense (as determined by the Legislature) if the person charged entered or remained in the United States illegally and the court finds proof that the person committed the crime is evident or the presumption that the person committed the crime is great.



In 2006, the Legislature enacted legislation to specify that class 1, 2, 3 and 4 felony offenses would constitute the “serious felony” offenses for which a person who has entered or remained in the United States illegally shall be denied bail. That legislation does not become effective unless Proposition 100 is enacted.


Bailable Offenses; Prohibitions
Proposition 103
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 80.0%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
(SCR 1011)

Analysis by Legislative Council:



The Arizona Constitution provides that all persons who are charged with a crime are eligible for bail, subject to certain exceptions. Bail is not allowed for any person who is charged with a crime if the court finds proof that the person committed the crime is evident or the presumption that the person committed the crime is great and the charged crime is: (1) a capital offense (an offense punishable by death), (2) a felony offense committed when the person charged is already admitted to bail on a separate felony charge or (3) a felony offense if the
person charged poses a substantial danger to any other person or the community and no condition of release will reasonably assure the safety of the other person or community.



Proposition 103 would amend the Arizona Constitution to additionally prohibit bail for any person who is charged with a crime if the court finds proof that the person committed the crime is evident or the presumption that the person committed the crime is great and the charged
crime is: (1) sexual assault, (2) sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen years of age or (3) molestation of a child under fifteen years of age.



Proposition 103 would also amend the Constitution to specify that the purposes of bail and any conditions of release that are set by a judicial officer include assuring the appearance of the accused, protecting against the intimidation of witnesses and protecting the safety of the
victim, any other person or the community.


Basic Science
Unknown7
Election:
General

1933

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.6%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Beverage Containers
Proposition 200
Election:
General

1982

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 31.9%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Environmental Protection

Summary: Click for Summary
An act relating to alcoholic beverages; providing for deposit and refund for certain beverage containers; prescribing refund values and refund procedures; prohibiting sale of certain containers and container attachments; providing for redemption centers; providing for dealer and redemption center reimbursement from distributor.

[S]


Blacklisting Prohibited
Unknown8
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.1%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.

[S]


Board of Equalization
Unknown8
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 28.9%)
Topic Areas:
State Government | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Boards, Abolishment of 18
Unknown8
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.9%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Bond Issues and Special Assessments of Political Subdivisions of State Submitted to Vote of Real Property Owners
Proposition 101
Election:
General

1965

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 20.5%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Bonded Indebtedness: $100 million limitation for Capital Outlay
Proposition 100
Election:
General

1965

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 17.9%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Cars in Railroad Train Limit
Proposition 304
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.6%)
Topic Areas:
Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary


Chiropractors, Regulate
Unknown9
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.4%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


City Managers, Non-Residents
Unknown3
Election:
General

1948

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.4%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


City or Town Debt; Purposes
Proposition 101
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 39.2%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2017

Prescribes purposes for which a city or town may incur additional voter-approved debt.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Civil Service
Unknown8
Election:
General

1948

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 66.7%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Civil Service Commission
Unknown7
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 31.1%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Colorado River, Appropriation
Unknown6
Election:
General

1924

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.8%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Commission on Judicial Conduct
Proposition 102
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.8%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2009

A concurrent resolutioin proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to the Commission on Judicial Conduct; providing for the Commission on Judicial Conduct; prescribing composition and terms of members; prescribing remedies for misconduct; prescribing applicability; making conforming changes; amending the article heading of Article VI.1, Constitution of Arizona, and amending Article VI.1, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Constitution of Arizona.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Commission on Judicial Qualifications
Proposition 101
Election:
General

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.1%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary | Legislatures | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1009 – Ordered placed on the ballot as five separate questions by the attorney general in responses to a question propounded by the governor.

An amendment relating to a commission on judicial qualifications; requiring that confirmation by the senate of certain commission apopintments by the governor be “in the manner prescribed by law.”

[Constitutional Amendment]


Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers
Proposition 300
Election:
General

2004

Type:
Other

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 39.4%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
The Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers Recommends the salaries of legislators be increased to $36,000.


Commissioner of Finance, State
Unknown9
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 15.7%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Compensation for Owner of Private Property
Unknown2
Election:
General

1970

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 66.9%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Compensation of Elective State Officers
Unknown3
Election:
General

1970

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.8%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Compensation of State Elective and Juidicial Officers
Proposition 102
Election:
General

1982

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 25.2%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary | Labor & Employment | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2012

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to compensation of state elective and judicial officers; prescribing exemptions from proscription against increasing compensation during a term of office; clarifying the application of certain procedures to justices and judges of courts of record.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Composition of Legislature
Unknown9
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.5%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Confinement of Minors
Proposition 104
Election:
General

1980

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.6%)
Topic Areas:
Juvenile Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2006

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona allowing confinement of minors convicted as adults with adults.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Conservation, Game and Fish Commission
Unknown6
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 33.0%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Constitutional Amendment Relating to Constitutional Textual Terminology
Proposition 101
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.9%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Legislative Constitutional Amendment



(summary from Arizona Legislative Council) Proposition 101 would amend several sections of the Arizona Constitution to modernize certain out-of-date language including references to people with disabilities.



Proposition 101 would also amend the Arizona Constitution to change certain voting requirements to conform with the United States Constitution and other federal laws. Proposition 101 would change the minimum voting age to 18 and eliminate the one-year residency requirement for voting. Under Arizona law, there is a twenty-nine day residency requirement, which remains unchanged. These changes are already enforced in Arizona pursuant to federal law.


Constitutional Amendment Relating to Corporation Commission Membership
Proposition 103
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.0%)
Topic Areas:
Gambling & Lotteries | State-Tribal Relations

Summary: Click for Summary
Legislative Constitutional Amendment

(summary from Arizona Legislative Council) The Corporation Commission regulates certain utilities and railroads in this state and handles the incorporating process and regulates the securities industry in this state.



Under current law, the Corporation Commission consists of three members each elected to a six year term of office. Each member may only serve a single consecutive six year term and must be out of office for a full term before being eligible to serve again.



Proposition 103 would amend the Arizona Constitution to expand the Corporation Commission to five members and to change the term of office to four years. Proposition 103 also would limit a member to two consecutive terms in office and would require a member to be out of office for at least one full term before being eligible to serve again.



This proposition also provides for a phase in process for the additional Corporation Commission members. Beginning with the election in 2002, the two new members would both serve a two year term and all later terms of office would be for a four year term.


Constitutional Amendment Relating to Creation of a Redistricting Commission
Proposition 106
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.1%)
Topic Areas:
Redistricting | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
(summary from Arizona Legislative Council)

Proposition 106 would amend the Arizona Constitution to establish an appointed Redistricting Commission to redraw the boundaries for Arizona’s legislative districts (for the members of the Arizona Legislature) and to redraw the boundaries for the Congressional Districts (for Arizona’s members of the United States Congress). Currently, state law provides that the Arizona Legislature draws the legislative and congressional district lines. These lines are usually redrawn every ten years, after the state receives the results of the U.S. Census.



This proposition provides that the appointed Redistricting Commission shall first draw districts that are equal in population in a grid-like pattern across the state, with adjustments to meet the following goals:



1. Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act.

2. Both legislative and congressional districts shall be equal in population, to the extent practicable. This establishes a new strict population equality standard for legislative districts.

3. Districts shall be geographically compact and contiguous, as much as practical.

4. District boundaries shall respect “communities of interest,” as much as practical.

5. District lines shall follow visible geographic features, and city, town and county boundaries and undivided “census tracts” as much as practical.

6. Political party registration, voting history data and residences of incumbents and other candidates may not be used to create district maps.

7. “Competitive districts” are favored if competitive districts do not significantly harm the other goals listed.



The Redistricting Commission would consist of five members, no more than two of whom can be from the same political party or the same county. Persons would be eligible for membership on the commission if they meet certain voter registration requirements, and if during the last three years, they have not been candidates for public office or appointed to public office, except for school board members or officers, have not served as an officer of a political party or as an officer of a candidate’s election committee and if they have not been a paid lobbyist. The Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, the Minority Party Leader of the Arizona House of Representatives, the President of the Arizona State Senate and the Minority Party Leader of the Arizona State Senate would each appoint one person to the Redistricting Commission. These four members of the Redistricting Commission would then meet and vote to appoint a fifth member to chair the commission. The commission would provide at least 30 days for the public to review the preliminary lines drawn by the commission, and then the commission would make the lines final, subject to approval by the United States Department of Justice.



Proposition 106 allocates $6 million to the Redistricting Commission for use in the redistricting process that begins in 2001 and allows additional money for later redistricting.



Fiscal Impact Summary:

Proposition 106 allocates $6,000,000 from general state revenue to the redistricting commission for use in the redistricting process that begins in 2001. Redistricting expenses are incurred once every ten years after the completion of the decennial census. If the Proposition is not approved, the current method of redistricting will continue to require funding. The sum of $3,000,000 has already been enacted into law for the current process.

[CA]


Constitutional Amendment Relating to Public Debt, Revenue and Taxation
Proposition 105
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 68.4%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Legislative Constitutional Amendment

(summary from Arizona Legislative Council) All property in Arizona is subject to property tax unless there is an exemption from the tax under the Arizona Constitution or federal law. The Arizona Constitution may either require that certain property be exempt from property taxation or may authorize the Legislature to enact an exemption.



Proposition 105 would amend the Arizona Constitution to authorize the Legislature to exempt from property tax cemetery property that is actually set aside and used for the burial or storage of dead human beings.



The Legislature has passed legislation to implement this exemption if this proposition is approved by the voters. The owner of the cemetery would have to file an affidavit with the County Assessor that states why the property qualifies for the exemption. After the initial application for the exemption, the owner of the cemetery would have to file another affidavit only if either:



1.The owner transferred all or part of the property to a new owner.

2. The owner stopped using any part of the property as a cemetery or any part of the property is rezoned.


Constitutional Amendment Relating to Residential Property Tax Valuation
Proposition 104
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.8%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Legislative Constitutional Amendment

(summary from Arizona Legislative Council) Proposition 104 would amend the Arizona Constitution relating to residential property tax valuation. Under current law, all similarly classified property is taxed in a uniform manner.



Proposition 104 would provide an exception to this uniform method of property taxation by allowing the value of the primary residence of qualifying owners to remain at a fixed amount. An owner could request that the value of their primary residence, including a single family home, condominium, townhouse or mobile home and up to 10 acres of undeveloped accompanying land, remain fixed by applying for a “property valuation protection option” with the county assessor. The county assessor would grant the option if all of the following requirements are met:



1. The owner is an Arizona resident.

2. At least one of the owners of the primary residence is at least 65 years old.

3. The property is the primary residence of the owner.

4. The owner has resided at the property for at least two years before applying for the property valuation protection option.

5. The owner’s total income from all sources, including nontaxable income, shall not exceed 400% of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit rate. If two or more persons own the property, the owners’ combined total income from all sources cannot exceed 500% of the Supplemental Security Income benefit rate. (The current annual SSI benefit rate is $6,144.)



If the county assessor grants the option, the value of the owner’s primary residence would remain fixed at the full cash value that was in effect when the option was filed. The owner would be required to renew the option every three years. If ownership of the property transfers to a person who does not qualify for the option, the option would terminate and the property would be revalued.



Proposition 104 would only freeze the property value of qualifying owners. Proposition 104 would not freeze property tax rates or the actual amount of taxes that are paid.


Constitutional Amendment Relating to State Lands
Proposition 100
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.7%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
Legislative Constitutional Amendment



(summary from Arizona Legislative Council) In 1910, the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act, allowing Arizona to become a state. The Enabling Act granted Arizona millions of acres of land, referred to as “state trust land”. The state land trust is intended to produce revenue for various public institutions (schools, colleges, prisons, etc.), the largest of which is the public schools which own 87% of the land. The state can lease or sell trust land, and the natural products (timber, minerals, etc.) of the land, only to the “highest and best bidder” at public auction.



Proposition 100 proposes a series of amendments to the state constitution that, together with changes to the Enabling Act, will allow some state trust land and trust land income to be used for additional purposes as follows:



– Proposition 100 would allow public school trust land to be donated to a school district without cost for use as a school site. The school district could only use the donated land as a site for kindergarten, elementary, junior high or high school instruction.

– Approximately 270,000 acres of state trust land could be designated as Arizona Conservation Reserve (ACR) lands to preserve significant cultural, historical, paleontological, natural resource or geologic features from development. A city, town or county would nominate trust lands to become ACR lands and, after review, the Legislature could designate the nominated land as ACR land either by passing a bill or by referring the nominated land to a statewide vote of the people. ACR land could be sold for its appraised value minus the development value to a state agency or to a city, town, county or Indian tribe without an auction, but any owner of ACR lands would have to protect the unique features of the land from development. Proposition 100 includes approximately 70,000 acres at 41 trust land sites that are proposed to be designated automatically as ACR lands. A list of these initial ACR lands appears at the end of this analysis.

– State trust land could be exchanged only for other government-owned land and only to conserve open space on the trust land. In order to permit the exchange, it must be in the best interest of the state land trust, there must be public hearings, the appraised value of the land the state receives in the exchange must at least equal the appraised value of the trust land the state exchanges, the state trust income must not be reduced and the financial impact of the exchange on the county, city or town and school district in which the lands are located must be analyzed. This change does not require an Enabling Act change by Congress.

– The Legislature would be authorized to provide that in cases where trust land is being sold for development, additional trust land could be donated to the community for conservation purposes if including the conservation land in the package deal would increase the overall net value of the trust land to be developed.

– Up to 5% of the money derived from sales and leases of trust land could be appropriated to manage trust lands rather than being paid to the trust beneficiary institutions. The money could also be used for land use planning, but could not be used for personnel expenses.

– The Legislature would be authorized to allow agricultural and grazing trust land to be leased for long term (more than ten years) without an auction in order to promote sound stewardship and long-term agricultural and grazing productivity.

– Natural products of the trust land, such as rocks and plants, could be sold in small quantities for noncommercial purposes without an auction.

– The state trust land auction process would be expedited by reducing the time between the date of the auction notice and the date of the auction and by allowing the Legislature to determine how the notice and the auction is to be conducted.



Approximately 70,000 acres of trust land will be designated as Arizona Conservation Reserve Lands if Proposition 100 is approved. The actual boundaries of these parcels are shown on maps filed in the office of the Secretary of State.



In addition, the location and boundaries of these sites are shown on maps at the Arizona state land department website: http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/proposed/propinfo.html


Constitutional Amendment Relating to Wildlife Management
Proposition 102
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 37.5%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
Legislative Constitutional Amendment

(summary from Arizona Legislative Council) Proposition 102 directs the State to manage wildlife in the public trust to assure the continued existence of wildlife populations. Public trust is a legal concept relating to the ownership, protection and use of natural resources. Under the public trust, the State must manage wildlife for the public benefit, which includes both present and future generations.



Proposition 102 would also amend the Arizona Constitution to require that any initiative measure relating to the taking of wildlife does not go into effect unless it is approved by at least two-thirds of the voters who vote on the measure. Currently, the Arizona Constitution requires a simple majority vote for initiative measures. The two-thirds requirement would also apply to measures authorizing or restricting (1) the methods of taking wildlife (2) the seasons when wildlife may be taken. The two-thirds requirement would not apply to legislative enactments or to measures that the Legislature refers to the voters.


Constitutional Amendment to Allow Enactment of Laws Governing Jurisdiction Over Juveniles
Proposition 102
Election:
General

1996

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.9%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice | Juvenile Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Article VI, section 15, Constitution of Arizona, gives the Superior Court exclusive original jurisdiction in all proceedings and matters affecting juveniles. Under the Constitution, judges can decide whether to suspend the prosecution of a juvenile for a criminal offense. Proposition 102 would amend the Constitution by repealing Article VI, section 15 and by allowing the Legislature to limit the power of the courts to suspend the prosecution of a juvenile and by limiting the jurisdiction of the courts to those juvenile matters that are provided by the Legislature or the people. The Supreme Court and Superior Court would continue to have jurisdiction over juveniles, including dependent juveniles, pursuant to other existing laws unless those laws are amended by the Legislature or the people at some future time.



Currently, a juvenile may be prosecuted as an adult for a criminal offense only if the County Attorney requests that the juvenile be transferred to the Superior Court for criminal prosecution and the court grants the request for transfer. Under Proposition 102 juveniles who are 15 years of age or older and who are accused of murder, rape or armed robbery would be prosecuted as adults. Juveniles who are 15 years of age or older and who are accused of other violent crimes or who are chronic offenders would also be prosecuted as adults. Proposition 102 would allow the Legislature to determine the range of punishment for juvenile offenders, so that the Legislature could decide that some adult sentences don’t apply to juveniles who are prosecuted as adults. Under Proposition 102, all juveniles who are convicted of a criminal offense or who are found responsible for unlawful conduct would be required to make prompt restitution to their victims.



Proposition 102 would allow county attorneys to establish community based alternatives for dealing with less serious juvenile offenders.



Proposition 102 would open to the public certain records and proceedings of juveniles who are accused of unlawful conduct that are now confidential. Juvenile records or proceedings could be closed only to protect the privacy of innocent victims of crime or if a court finds a clear public interest in confidentiality.

[CA]


Constitutional Amendment to Allow the Legislature to Exempt some Property from Taxation
Proposition 101
Election:
General

1996

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.5%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
The Arizona Constitution provides that all property in Arizona is subject to property taxation unless it is specifically exempted from tax as authorized by the Constitution.



Proposition 101 would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow the Legislature to exempt from taxation the first $50,000 of “full cash value” of a taxpayer’s “personal property” if it is used in agriculture or in a trade or business. The Legislature could also increase the exempt amount above $50,000 according to changes in a national inflation index, such as the consumer price index.



Under current Arizona law, the first $50,000 of full cash value of a taxpayer’s personal property is taxed based on a 1% assessment ratio. Assessment ratios on property range from 1% to 100%.



“Full cash value” refers to the market value of property unless a specific formula for valuing property for tax purposes is set out in law.


“Personal property” refers to property that is not part of real estate and includes such things as machinery, equipment and store fixtures.



Proposition 101 could affect the tax revenue and property tax rates of the state, counties, cities and towns, school districts, community college districts and other governmental entities that rely on property taxes, but the exemptions would not be automatic on passage of this proposition. The actual effect would depend on how the Legislature enacted the exemptions within the authority and limits of this proposition.


Constitutional Jurisdiction of the Corporation Commission
Proposition 105
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.2%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2010

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to the Corporation Commission; providing for removal of constitutional jurisdiction of the Corporation Commission over the issuance of certificates of incorporation to domestic corporations and licenses to foreign corporations; providing the legislature with the authority to designate the state agency which has jurisdiction over the sale of securities; providing for the filing of articles of incorporation and annual reports of corporations; providing for the issuance of certificates of incorporation and for the licensing of foreign corporations.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Consumer Choice and Fair Competition Telecommunications Amendment
Proposition 108
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 19.6%)
Topic Areas:
Telecom & Info Technology

Summary: Click for Summary
(summary from Arizona Legislative Council)

The Arizona Constitution gives the Corporation Commission the authority to prescribe all local telephone service rates, charges and classifications. In practice, the Corporation Commission sets the rates and charges for incumbent providers through a formal process, and regulates the rates and charges of new local telephone companies through a less formal process. Proposition 108 would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow all companies that provide local telephone service to set their own rates, charges and classifications for local telephone service in any city, community or other area in this state if the Corporation Commission determines that local telephone service is available from two or more companies to a majority of the residential or business consumers within that specific area. This proposition does not apply to long distance telephone service or to access and interconnection charges paid by one telecommunications company to another.
If an area is served by two or more companies that provide local telephone service but a consumer has access to only one company, that company would be required to offer the consumer the same rates for comparable local telephone and other telecommunications services offered by that company to other consumers in the area, and the Corporation Commission would be required to establish a “simplified and expedited” process to allow consumers to enforce their rights to those comparable rates.



In areas of the state where only one telephone company is offering local service, the Corporation Commission would continue to set rates, charges and classifications. Proposition 108 would amend the Arizona Constitution to change the methodology used by the Corporation Commission in setting local telephone rates. Currently, the Arizona Constitution requires the Corporation Commission to use the “fair value” method in setting a utility’s rate base. (The rate base is the value of the facilities and other assets needed to supply utility service to the consumer. The “fair value” method involves adjusting the original cost of the plant and additions upward to recognize increased costs in constructing utility plant facilities.) A utility’s rate base is then used by the Corporation Commission to set end-user rates. This proposition would delete the constitutional requirement that the Corporation Commission use only the “fair value” method for telephone and telecommunications services and would allow the Corporation Commission to use fair value, rate caps and other rate making methodologies in setting those rates, charges and classifications for those services. In setting rates, charges and classifications under this proposition, the Corporation Commission could consider only the costs arising and revenues derived from telephone and telecommunications services provided in areas where rates are regulated, not areas where rates are deregulated.



Under this proposition, each telephone company that provides local service would submit an annual report to the Corporation Commission specifying the areas in this state in which the company is offering local telephone service to residential or business consumers, or both. Companies could then submit petitions to the Corporation Commission requesting that their own rates in areas served by competing companies be deregulated and determined by competition, rather than being set by the Corporation Commission. The Corporation Commission would have to deregulate local telephone rates in an area where it determines that a majority of consumers are being offered service from two or more companies. The Corporation Commission would be authorized to deny any petition if it decides that local telephone service is not generally available from competing companies. If the Corporation Commission did not act on the petition within 60 days of filing, the area would be treated as if competitive services were generally available and rates would be deregulated in that area. The Corporation Commission’s determinations on deregulating rates in an area would be made separately for residential and business consumers. All determinations would be subject to review in court.



Fiscal Impact Summary:

Proposition 108 would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow telephone companies that provide local service to set their own rates and charges in areas of the state where competition exists. It is not possible to determine in advance the impact of the Proposition on Arizona’s economy and on state government tax revenues. As a general practice, deregulation of an industry leads to more competition and lower prices than in the previously regulated market. Moreover, increased competition is often associated with additional business spending and employment growth, which in turn tend to raise the general level of economic activity and state tax revenues.



In this particular circumstance, however, we cannot accurately predict the extent to which the telephone industry would become deregulated under the Proposition. Once the magnitude of deregulation becomes known, the fiscal impact will become easier to determine.



Finally, subsequent to deregulation, the responsibilities of the Corporation Commission and another state agency, the Residential Utility Consumer Office (RUCO), relative to rate setting should decline, and their budgets will need to be evaluated at that time.

[CA]


Continuity of State & Local Government Provided by Legislature in Emergency
Unknown1
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.2%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures | Local Government | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Corporation Commission
Proposition 104
Election:
General

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 66.2%)
Topic Areas:
Insurance | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1009 – Ordered placed on the ballot as five separate questions by the attorney general in responses to a question propounded by the governor.

An amendment relating to the Corporation Commission and its powers; requiring that the appointment of a director of insurance shall be by the governor “with the consent of the senate in the manner prescribed by law.”

[Constitutional Amendment]


Corporation Commission
Proposition 100
Election:
General

1986

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.3%)
Topic Areas:
State Government | Telecom & Info Technology

Summary: Click for Summary
A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to the Corporation Commission; providing for definition of public service corporations to include certain telecommunication corporations; providing for limitation on telecommunications corporations as common carriers subject to control by law; providing that the Corporation Commission shall take action assuring certain telecommunications service; prescribing transmission of messages by connecting carriers; prescribing exception for certain telecommunications corporations from property valuation required by public service corporations.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Corporation Commission Members
Proposition 104
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 33.6%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2003

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to corporations and the Corporation Commission; prescribing appointment, composition and term of Corporation Commission members; prescribing senate consent for appointments; prescribing method to integrate and terminate existing members and to fill unexpired terms.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Corporation Commission: Appointive Instead of Elective
Unknown12
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.6%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Corrections Officer Retirement Plan Amendment
Proposition 125
Election:
General

2018

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.7%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Criminal Justice | Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
CORP is a governmental defined-benefit (DB) retirement plan for correctional officers, probation officers, and surveillance officers in Arizona. Senate Bill 1442 would require corrections officers hired on or after July 1, 2018, to enroll in a defined-contribution (DC) retirement plan known as the Public Safety Personnel Defined Contribution Retirement Plan (PSPDCRP). SB 1442 would allow probation and surveillance officers hired on or after July 1, 2018, to decide whether to participate in either PSPDCRP or CORP. The bill would also establish a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), rather than a permanent benefit increase, for members hired on or after July 1, 2018.


Cost Effective Health Care
Proposition 200
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.4%)
Topic Areas:
Health | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
An initiative relating to cost effective health care; authorizing the creation of the Arizona Health Care Authority and its divisions; providing for the employment of directors and other personnel; prescribing provisions for funding; providing for the establishment of prospective pricing for hospitals; prescribing procedures for capital expenditure review of health care institutions; providing for the establishment of a State Health Planning Council and local health planning councils; prescribing procedures for the development of local health plans and for the consolidation and integration of them into a state health plan; providing for enforcement action.

[S]


Counties, Creation and Organization of
Unknown8
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 12.2%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Counties, Organization, Separation, Annexation
Unknown18
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 33.7%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary


Counties: 5-Man Board of Supervisors
Unknown11
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.8%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


County Expenditures, Limit on
Unknown2
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.7%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


County Officers
Unknown5
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.3%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


County Officers Established
Unknown4
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 23.5%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


County Officers, 4-Year Terms
Unknown1
Election:
General

1933

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 36.9%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


County Officers: 4-Year Terms
Unknown5
Election:
General

1964

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.5%)
Topic Areas:
Elections | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


County Offices, 4-Year Terms
Unknown3
Election:
General

1946

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 41.6%)
Topic Areas:
Elections | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


County Seats
Unknown19
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44.6%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary


Court System Revision
Unknown2
Election:
General

1960

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.8%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Creating Department of Finance
Unknown3
Election:
Special

1952

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.8%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Creating Department of Health and Welfare
Unknown5
Election:
Special

1952

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.3%)
Topic Areas:
Health | Human Services | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Creating Department of Law
Unknown4
Election:
Special

1952

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.0%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Crime Victim Protection Act of 2012
Proposition 114
Election:
General

2012

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 80.2% (Unofficial))
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 114 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that a crime victim is not liable for damages incurred by a person who was harmed while attempting, engaging in or fleeing from conduct that is classified as a felony offense.



Under current law, Article II, section 31 and Article XVIII, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution generally provide that the right to recover for damages for death or injury may not be limited. Proposition 114 would amend these sections of the Arizona Constitution to provide an exception that a crime victim is not subject to a claim for damages by a person who is harmed while attempting to engage in conduct classified as a felony offense, while engaging in conduct classified as a felony offense or while fleeing from such conduct.



Article II, section 2.1 of the Arizona Constitution provides that a “victim” is a person against whom a criminal offense has been committed, or if that person is killed or incapacitated, that person’s spouse, parent, child or other lawful representative.


Death Penalty for Murder
Unknown8
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.8%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Death Penalty, Abolishment
Unknown8
Election:
General

1916

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.2%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Death Penalty, Lethal Gas
Unknown2
Election:
General

1933

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.4%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Death Penalty; Abolishment
Unknown6
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.3%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.

[S]


Delinquent Taxes
Unknown7
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.5%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.

[S]


Dental Advertising
Unknown7
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 33.2%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Determining the Value of Public Service Corporations
Proposition 107
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.4%)
Topic Areas:
Energy & Electric Utilities | Local Government | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2010

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to the Corporation Commission; repealing the provision relating to the method used by the Corporation Commission to determine the value of public service corporations.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Determining the Value of Public Service Corporations
Proposition 101
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 33.6%)
Topic Areas:
Energy & Electric Utilities | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2011

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to the Corporation Commission; repealing the provision relating to the method used by the Corporation Commission to determine the value of public service corporations, and repealing Article IV, Section 14, Constitution of Arizona.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Development and Revision of Health Plans
Proposition 302
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.3%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1001

A concurrent resolution enacting and ordering the submission to the people of a measure relating to health care cost containment. An act relating to public health and safety; prescribing methods for development and revision of health plans;…..(abbreviated official title)

[Statutory]


Direct Primary
Unknown2
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 22.8%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 2002
Proposition 203
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.7%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Analysis by Legislative Council:



In 1996, the voters passed the Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996. The Act allowed medical doctors to prescribe certain controlled substances to treat diseases or to relieve the symptoms of seriously ill or terminally ill patients. Along with other provisions, the Act modified probation, sentencing and treatment laws for drug offenders.



Proposition 203 would decriminalize the possession of two ounces or less of marijuana, marijuana drug paraphernalia or two or fewer marijuana plants if the possession is for personal use only but would subject the possessor to a civil fine of $250 for a first or second offense or $750 for a third or subsequent offense within a two year period. A judge could waive the civil fine if the person completes a court approved drug education program.



Proposition 203 requires the Department of Public Safety to provide not more than two ounces of marijuana free of charge to each person who is qualified to use marijuana for medical purposes.



This proposition would require any law enforcement agency that seizes marijuana that was grown, cultivated or produced in Arizona to retain the marijuana and forward it to the Arizona Department of Public Safety. It also would require the Director of the Department of Public Safety to request from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the University of Mississippi quarterly shipments of marijuana grown at the University of Mississippi for distribution free of charge by the Department to all persons qualified to use marijuana for medical purposes.



The Department of Public Safety would be required to maintain marijuana that is seized and that is grown, cultivated or produced in Arizona in secure locations within public buildings located in at least the three most populous counties, and the Department would be required to disclose the location of these public buildings. The distribution to qualified persons would be limited to not more than two ounces of marijuana within a thirty day period. In addition, the proposition would establish criminal penalties for any person who uses or attempts to use false identification and for any person who possesses, uses, sells, delivers or transports marijuana outside Arizona or delivers the marijuana to another person who intends to possess, sell, deliver or transport the marijuana outside Arizona.



Proposition 203 also would require the Arizona Department of Health Services to establish and maintain a program for the issuance of registry identification cards to any Arizona resident who is at least eighteen years of age, who pays a fee of $50 and who provides written documentation from the person’s attending physician that the person has been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition and that the medical use of marijuana may mitigate the symptoms or effects of the person’s condition. If the person designates a primary caregiver and the caregiver meets certain requirements, the caregiver also would be eligible to receive a registry identification card. A cardholder would be entitled to possess, use or produce two ounces of marijuana and two marijuana plants, and the cardholder’s designated primary caregiver would be entitled to possess or produce two ounces of marijuana and two marijuana plants. The registry identification card program also includes the following provisions:

· Under certain conditions, the Department of Health Services would be allowed to issue a registry identification card to a person who is less than eighteen years of age if the person’s custodial parent or legal guardian consents to the medical use of marijuana by that person.

· The Department also would be allowed to deny an application for a registry identification card if the applicant fails to provide the necessary information or the Department determines that the information provided is false.

· Intentionally providing false information to the Department for purposes of obtaining a registry identification card would be punishable as a class 4 felony.

· A cardholder and the cardholder’s designated primary caregiver would be required to return their registry identification cards to the Department if the cardholder’s attending physician determines that the cardholder no longer has a debilitating medical condition or if the cardholder no longer resides in Arizona.

· Any person who possesses a registry identification card would have to notify the Department of any change in the person’s name, address, attending physician or designated primary caregiver and annually submit to the Department updated written documentation of the person’s debilitating medical condition and name of the person’s designated primary caregiver for the upcoming year.



Proposition 203 defines “debilitating medical condition” to mean cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or treatment for these conditions; a medical condition or treatment for a medical condition that produces, for a specific patient, one or more of the following: (i) cachexia; (ii) severe pain; (iii) severe nausea; (iv) seizures, including but not limited to seizures caused by epilepsy; or (v) persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to spasms caused by multiple sclerosis; or any other medical condition or treatment for a medical condition adopted by the Department by rule or approved by the Department pursuant to a petition submitted pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute section 36-2611.



Proposition 203 would increase the maximum sentence by fifty percent for any person who is convicted of intentionally and knowingly committing a violent crime while under the influence of a controlled substance and would abolish the minimum mandatory sentence or fine for any conviction of certain drug offenses.



Proposition 203 would require probation on conviction of a first or second offense involving the personal possession or use of paraphernalia associated with possession or use of a controlled substance and prohibit the court from imposing a term of incarceration in prison or jail as a condition of probation. It would subject to incarceration persons who are convicted of three or more offenses involving personal possession or use of a controlled substance or paraphernalia associated with possession or use of a controlled substance. For purposes of determining whether or not a person is eligible for probation or incarceration, a court could not consider a prior conviction for personal possession or use of a controlled substance or personal possession or use of drug paraphernalia associated with possession or use of a controlled substance if the person has completed a court ordered drug treatment or education program for that prior conviction. Proposition 203 also specifies that any drug treatment for a person with a history of opiod use must include an assessment by a professional who is qualified in the use of narcotic replacement treatment and, if medically necessary, must include use of narcotic replacement therapy, such as methadone maintenance.



Proposition 203 provides that even if a person does not possess a registry identification card, the person would have an affirmative defense to a criminal charge of possession, usage or production of marijuana if the person charged has been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition, has been advised by an attending physician that the medical use of marijuana may mitigate the symptoms or effects, is engaged in the medical use of marijuana and possesses or produces not more than two ounces of marijuana and two marijuana plants. If the person possesses or produces more than these amounts, the person could also assert the affirmative defense but would have to prove that the greater amount is medically necessary as determined by the person’s attending physician.



Proposition 203 would also require parole or community supervision for prisoners who have been convicted of personal possession or use of a controlled substance and who are not concurrently serving another sentence, unless the Board of Executive Clemency determines that a prisoner would be a danger to the public. These prisoners would be required to participate in and, to the extent they are able, pay for a drug treatment or education program as a condition of parole or community supervision.



Proposition 203 specifies that property seized in relation to a drug offense may not be forfeited unless the owner of the property is convicted of the drug offense and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that either the property was instrumental in committing or facilitating the offense or was the proceeds of the offense.

[S]


Early Childhood Development and Health Programs
Proposition 302
Election:
General

2010

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 30.1%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Education: PreK-12 | Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 302 would:



1. Redirect the ongoing tobacco tax revenues that are currently deposited in the Early Childhood Development and Health fund for deposit in the state general fund, to be separately accounted for and appropriated for health and human services for children.



2. Transfer any remaining uncommitted Early Childhood Development and Health fund monies to the state general fund on December 1, 2010.



3. Terminate the Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Board on December 1, 2010.



4. Repeal the Early Childhood Development and Health program statutes on June 1, 2011.



The Early Childhood Development and Health Fund consists of revenues generated by an $.80 per pack tax on tobacco products and donations and state appropriations. The fund is administered by the Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Board and is required to be used for the following purposes:



1. Funding central and field offices, employing staff and establishing and appointing regional partnership councils, which make funding recommendations to the Board.



2. Disbursing monies for programs and grants that increase the quality of and access to early childhood development and health services for children up to five years of age and their families.



A “yes” vote shall have the effect of terminating the Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Board and programs, which were established by voters in 2006 as part of the “Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Initiative.” It would require the transfer of money remaining in the early childhood development and education fund on December 1, 2010 to be deposited in the state general fund. Thereafter, it would require tobacco tax money collected pursuant to the initiative to be deposited in the state general fund and used for health and human services for children.



A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Board and programs and keeping any money in the early childhood development and education fund.


Education Expenditure Limitations
Proposition 104
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 69.4%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
(HCR 2002)

Analysis by Legislative Council:



The Arizona Constitution requires the Economic Estimates Commission (EEC) to annually establish an aggregate expenditure limitation of local revenues for all Arizona school districts. The EEC calculates the aggregate expenditure limitation by adjusting the base level
expenditures of local revenues to reflect changes in the student population and cost of living. The Constitution prohibits school districts from spending more than the aggregate expenditure limitation established by the EEC. The Constitution excludes certain revenues from the definition of local revenues, thereby making those monies exempt from the aggregate expenditure limitation.



In 2000, the voters approved a ballot measure increasing the state transaction privilege (sales) tax and allocating the additional revenue derived from the increase for various education purposes. The additional revenue is subject to the aggregate expenditure limitation. Proposition 104 would exempt from the aggregate expenditure limitation revenue derived from the transaction privilege (sales) tax rate increase for educational purposes that was authorized by the voters in 2000.



Proposition 300, which is also being voted on at this, the 2002 election, specifies how income from public lands is to be used for educational purposes. If both Proposition 104 and Proposition 300 are approved by the voters at the 2002 election, the monies received from public lands for educational purposes as provided in Proposition 300 will be exempt from the aggregate expenditure limitation.


Education Finance Amendment
Proposition 123
Election:
Primary

2016

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.9% unofficial)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Increases annual distributions from the State Land Trust Permanent Endowment Fund from 2.5% to 6.9% to benefit Arizona K-12 schools, colleges, and other beneficiary institutions.


Education, Public School System
Unknown10
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 37.1%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Education, School Attendance
Unknown4
Election:
Special

1953

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.2%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary


Education, State Aid
Unknown10
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.5%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Education, State Board of
Unknown3
Election:
Special

1953

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.3)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary


Election of Corporation Commission Members
Proposition 106
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.8%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2010

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to the Corporation Commission; providing for a five member corporation commission elected at large; prescribing term of commission members; providing for completion of terms by current commissioners.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Election of State Executive Officers
Proposition 105
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.4%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1011

A concurrent resolution relating to the executive department, suffrage and elections and removal from office; prescribing vote requirements for state executive officers and special elections; prescribing elections for state officers; making technical changes, and amending Article 5, Section 1, Article VII, Section 7, and Article VIII, Part 1, Section 4, Constitution of Arizona.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Elections
Proposition 102
Election:
General

1974

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 41.3%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1003

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to elections; prescribing minimum number of electors who must vote at election on bond issues or special assessments.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Elections, General
Unknown4
Election:
General

1933

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.1%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Electric Poles; Placement
Unknown13
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.6%)
Topic Areas:
Energy & Electric Utilities

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.

[S]


Eligibility for State Office
Proposition 103
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 80.7%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Elections | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2008

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to the executive department; removing requirement that a person must be a male to be eligible for a state office, and amending Article V, Section 2, Constitution of Arizona.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Employees on Public Works
Unknown4
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.6%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Local Government | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Employment of Aliens
Unknown1
Election:
General

1956

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.5%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Employment of Aliens by Universities and Colleges
Unknown1
Election:
General

1960

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.0%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Education: Higher Ed | Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Employment of Children
Unknown3
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.6%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Employment Security – Agricultural Workers
Unknown18
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.7%)
Topic Areas:
Agriculture | Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Employment Security – Unemployment Benefits Extended
Unknown17
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 36.5%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


English as the Official Language
Proposition 103
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 74.0%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



Proposition 103 would replace the existing provision of the Constitution of Arizona with a new provision establishing English as the official language of this state. Representatives of the state or a local government would be required to preserve, protect and enhance the role of English as the official language.



Proposition 103 would require that all official actions of the government be conducted in English. Official actions include actions on behalf of the government that appear to present the position of the government or that bind the government. The proposition specifies situations in which state or local government could act in a language other than English, including:



1. When required by federal law or when necessary to preserve the right to petition the government.



2. In teaching languages other than English, or in using or preserving Native American languages.



3. In actions to protect the public health and safety, including law enforcement and emergency services, or to protect the rights of crime victims and criminal defendants.



4. Providing assistance to hearing impaired or illiterate persons.



5. In informal or nonbinding communications or translations among or between government officials and the public.



6. For actions necessary for tourism, commerce or international trade.



Proposition 103 would prohibit discrimination against a person because the person uses English in any public or private communication.



Proposition 103 also would allow a person who resides or does business in Arizona to enforce this new constitutional requirement in court. However, a person shall not file an action under this section unless the person has notified the attorney general of the alleged violation and the attorney general or other appropriate representative of government has not provided appropriate relief within a reasonable time under the circumstances. If the person is successful, they may be awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees.


English Language
Proposition 106
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.5%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to the English language; providing that English is the official language of the state of Arizona.

[CA]


English Language Education for Children in Public Schools
Proposition 203
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.0%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
(Summary by Arizona Legislative Council)

Proposition 203 would repeal the existing bilingual education laws and change the law to require that all classes be taught in English except that pupils who are classified as “English Learners” will be educated through sheltered English immersion programs during a temporary transition period. The sheltered English immersion programs will provide nearly all classroom instruction and materials in English, but may use a minimal amount of the child’s native language when necessary. The temporary transition period for sheltered English immersion programs will normally not exceed one year. When an English learner has acquired a good working knowledge of English, that pupil will be transferred to a regular English language classroom.



Proposition 203 allows parents to apply for waivers from participation in English immersion programs if their child already knows English, their child is at least ten years of age or their child has special needs. If the school grants the waiver, the child will be transferred to classes that teach English and other subjects through traditional bilingual education instruction or other generally recognized educational methods that are permitted by law.



Proposition 203 allows parents or legal guardians to recover actual and compensatory damages and attorney fees, but not punitive damages, against persons who willingly violate its provisions. Any school official who willfully and repeatedly refuses to comply with Proposition 203 is personally liable for damages and attorney fees to the parents or legal guardians of the child, shall be removed from office and shall be prohibited from holding any position of authority in the public school system for five years.



Proposition 203 requires that all students in grades two through twelve be tested annually to monitor their progress in academic subjects and in learning the English language. Students who are classified as severely learning disabled may be exempted from this test. The test score of an individual pupil compared to the national average will be confidentially provided to the parent or legal guardian of that pupil. The combined test scores for schools and school districts will be published on the Internet and the aggregate scores achieved by pupils classified as “limited-English” will be listed in a separate sub-category.



Fiscal Impact Summary:

Proposition 203 requires pupils who are “English learners” to be taught in English immersion classes during a temporary transition period. Under current law, school districts receive extra funding from the state for “English learners” without a specific time limit. Because the Proposition would limit the amount of time that pupils could remain eligible for additional state funding for “English learners,” the Proposition is expected to lead to state savings. The amount of the savings is difficult to predict in advance as it depends on the number of pupils who learn English more quickly in the immersion classes. In addition, it is unclear how federal law would affect the transfer of students out of the immersion classes. The maximum state savings would be as high as $20.3 million in 2004 if all English learners become proficient in English within a year, although that outcome is unlikely.



An additional fiscal impact could occur if school districts had to revamp their curricula, staff assignments, and operating procedures in order to comply with the Proposition. Since it would alter neither the state funding formula for public schools nor laws that “cap” school district expenditures, any additional costs would require a reallocation of existing school district resources.

[S]


Equal Pay, Court or Commission or Board
Unknown1
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.6%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Establish a Martin Luther King, Jr./Civil Rights Day
Proposition 300
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.3%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 300 establishes a Martin Luther King, Jr./Civil Rights paid state legal holiday and combines the Lincoln Day holiday and the Washington Day holiday into one holiday know as Lincoln/Washington Presidents’ Day so that there is no increase in the number of paid state legal holidays.


Establishing Classroom Improvement Program
Proposition 103
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.0%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Establishing a classroom improvement program to improve the quality of public schools and to achieve the three stated goals of improving basic reading, writing and mathematic skills, reducing high school dropout rates, and better preparing students for employment and higher education opportunities,a nd requiring school districts to prepare a public accountability report card to demonstrate progress toward these goals; and providing for additional revenue and additional funding in the amount of $100 per student per fiscal year for use solely on educational improvements to achieve the stated goals, and establishing a minimum funding level and increasing aggregate expenditure limitation for school districts.

[CA]


Establishing Insurance Consumer Office
Proposition 201
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 22.0%)
Topic Areas:
Insurance | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Establishing an Insurance Consumer Office; prescribing definitions; prescribing an Insurance Consumer Board; prescribing board members, terms and compensation; prescribing powers and duties of the Insurance Consumer Board; providing for a consumer protection division and an office of rate advocacy in the Insurance Consumer Office; providing for an insurance consumer protection fund; proscribing cancellation on the basis of age; proscribing inexperienced driver surcharges; proscribing territorial rating unless approved by the director; providing for a good driver discount; proscribing the cancellation of an agreement with an agent; prescribing definitions; providing for prior approval of rates or rate changes; providing for premium comparisons and complaint ratios; providing for punitive damages;…

[S]


Establishing Martin Luther King, Jr./Civil Rights Day
Proposition 302
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.2%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Ordering the submission to the people of an act relating to general provisions; providing that the third Monday in January is a legal holiday known as Martin Luther King, Jr./Civil Rights Day; preserving all other holidays as they existed before 1989; repealing 1989 holiday legislation which established Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and which changed Columbus Day from the second Monday to the second Sunday in October.


Establishing State Revenue Commission
Proposition 108
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.3%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | State Government | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1017

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to public debt, revenue and taxation; establishing State Revenue Commission; prescribing membership and duties of state revenue commission; providing for revenue estimates; prescribing limitation on state appropriations; establishing emergency appropriation account; prescribing funding and appropriation from emergency appropriation account.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Establishing Waste Reduction, Recycling and Management Plan
Proposition 202
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 33.4%)
Topic Areas:
Environmental Protection

Summary: Click for Summary
Relating to the protection of the environment and public health; proposing amendments to the Arizona Revised Statutes; providing for collection, disposal, treatment, storage, handling and transportation of special waste and reduction of hazardous and solid waste generation; providing special requirements for solid waste disposal facilities in or near floodplains and prescribing promulgation of rules by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for solid waste disposal facilities in or near floodplains; providing for a private right of action; providing for groundwater monitoring of solid waste disposal facilities; prescribing an Arizona Special Waste Management Program to be administered by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and prescribing promulgation of rules by the department…

[S]


Establishment Of Permanent Funds
Proposition 118
Election:
General

2012

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.7% (Unofficial))
Topic Areas:
Budgets

Summary: Click for Summary
In 1910, the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act, allowing Arizona to become a state and granting Arizona approximately 10.9 million acres of land, referred to as “state trust land”. The state land trust produces revenue for various public institutions in this state (schools, colleges, prisons, etc.). Proposition 118 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that for fiscal years 2012-2013 through 2020-2021, the annual distribution from the state trust land permanent funds to the various public institutions would be 2.5% of the average market values of the fund for the immediately preceding five calendar years. After fiscal year 2020-2021, the distribution formula would return to the current formula set out in the Arizona Constitution: average total rate of return for the previous five fiscal years, less percentage change in inflation, multiplied by the average market value over the previous five years.


Excise Taxation for School Purposes
Unknown13
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 21.3%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Executive Department
Proposition 100
Election:
General

1974

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.6%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1020

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to the Executive Department; conforming the two versions of Article 5, Section 1, to the interpretation reach by the Supreme Court and removing the residency requirement.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Executive Department 4-Year Term
Unknown2
Election:
General

1946

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.1%)
Topic Areas:
Elections | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Executive Department, 4-Year Terms
Unknown5
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 21.4%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Executive Department: Elect 4-Year Terms
Unknown5
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.2%)
Topic Areas:
Elections | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Exempt Household Goods from Personal Property Tax
Unknown3
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 79.9%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Expenditure Limitations for School Districts
Proposition 101
Election:
General

1986

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.0%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Education: PreK-12 | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to public debt, revenue, and taxation; providing for annual increases in the aggregate expenditure limitation for school districts.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Expenditure of Revenues for Highways
Unknown1
Election:
General

1952

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.6%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Expositions; Appropriation
Unknown10
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 32.9%)
Topic Areas:
Arts & Culture

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.

[S]


Extend the Mine Inspector’s Term of Office
Proposition 101
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.8%)
Topic Areas:
Elections | Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
This proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution would lengthen the term of office of the State Mine Inspector. Currently, the State Mine Inspector is elected for a two-year term. Proposition 101, if adopted, would increase that to a four-year term, beginning with the term for the State Mine Inspector who is elected at the November 1994 general election. This proposition does not limit the number of times a person can be elected to the office of State Mine Inspector.


Fair Gaming Act
Proposition 201
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 20.1%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Education: PreK-12 | Gambling & Lotteries | Health | State-Tribal Relations

Summary: Click for Summary
Analysis by Legislative Council:



Proposition 201 allows racetracks conducting live horse and dog racing to operate slot machines and authorizes the Governor to enter into tribal gaming compacts allowing Indian tribes to operate slot machines and card and table games on tribal land. Racetracks would pay 40% of their “gross gaming revenue” (defined as the difference between gaming wins and losses, before deducting costs and expenses) from the operation of slot machines to the state to fund racing and agricultural programs, reading programs for kindergarten through third grade students, programs to provide medical assistance in rural areas and reduce the cost of prescription drugs for Medicare recipients, scholarships, statewide tourism, programs for problem gambling, local government programs to provide enhanced police, fire and emergency services, and to the state fund used for the general operation of state government. Tribes that compact to conduct house-banked blackjack or house-banked poker, or that elect to transfer unused slot machines would contribute 8% of their “gross gaming revenue” to the state fund used for the general operation of state government.



Arizona has entered into gaming compacts with 17 of the state’s 21 Indian tribes. These compacts permit the tribes to operate specific gaming activities, including slot machines, that are, according to a federal court decision on appeal, illegal off of Indian reservations. These compacts begin to expire in the summer of 2003.



State law currently allows wagering on horse and dog racing at facilities that have state permits. State law does not presently allow horse and dog tracks to offer slot machines.
Proposition 201 allows the operation of slot machines at racetracks and authorizes the Governor to enter into new gaming compacts with Indian tribes as follows:



Term

· Racetracks–Each racetrack permittee must have a license to conduct live horse or dog racing before they may operate slot machines. The license is subject to renewal every 3 years and is revocable at anytime for cause. In addition, continued operation of slot machines will be subject to legislative review of the Arizona Department of Racing and the Arizona Racing Commission. State agencies undergo a complete review every 10 years and are subject to legislative oversight between reviews.

· Gaming compacts – 10 years.



Facilities

· Racetracks – Up to 10 racetracks statewide and up to 2 racetracks in a single county could operate slot machines.

· Gaming compacts – Each tribe may operate 1 to 3 gaming facilities, depending on tribal enrollment.



Games

· Racetracks – A maximum of 6450 slot machines at racetracks statewide would be allowed. The maximum number of slot machines at a single track would range from 550 to 950, depending on how many live races the track offers. This amount will increase every 5 years based on changes in the state’s population.

· Gaming compacts – Tribes may offer slot machines, blackjack, poker, wagering on horse and dog races, raffles and bingo. Each tribe may operate 600 to 2400 slot machines, depending on tribal enrollment. A maximum of 1000 slot machines is allowed at a single facility. A tribe that elects expansion of terms found in existing compacts may offer blackjack and poker at 50 to 75 tables per facility, depending on how close the facility is to a heavily populated city. Additionally, if the tribe elects expansion of terms found in existing compacts, the tribe may contract with another tribe to operate that tribe’s slot machines and pay not less than 50% of the net win to the other tribe. The number of slot machines allowed adjusts every 5 years based on changes in the state’s population. The Governor and each tribe may renegotiate the number of gaming tables allowed at that time.



Transfer provisions

· Racetracks – There are no provisions for racetracks to transfer their slot machine allotments to other tracks.

· Gaming compacts – Tribes may transfer a portion or all of their slot machine allotments to other tribes; a transferring tribe will receive not less than 50% of the net win from the transferred slot machines.



Revenue

· Racetracks – Tracks must pay 40% of their gross gaming revenue from the operation of slot machines to the state. Monies would be distributed to numerous racing and agricultural programs, to reading programs for kindergarten through third grade students, to provide medical assistance in rural areas and reduce the cost of prescription drugs for Medicare recipients, to provide scholarships, to promote statewide tourism, to combat problem gambling, to cities to provide enhanced police, fire and emergency services and to the state general fund.

· Gaming compacts – Tribes electing expansion of terms found in existing compacts must contribute 8% of their gross gaming revenue to the state in return for the exclusive right to operate house-banked card games such as blackjack and housebanked poker games and to operate transferred slot machines from other tribes up to the limit of 1000 slot machines per casino. Monies go to the state general fund. Pursuant to current law, tribes will continue to pay their share of regulatory costs incurred by the state.



Disclosure

· Racetracks – Tracks must disclose gross gaming revenue from each racetrack and each gaming activity. This information is open for public inspection at the Arizona Department of Racing.

· Gaming compacts – Each tribe must disclose to the Arizona Department of Gaming its gross gaming revenue for each facility and each gaming activity and its contributions to the state. This information is open for public inspection.



Regulation

· Racetracks – The Arizona Racing Commission must adopt rules setting forth standards for inspecting slot machines and monitoring their use, surveillance, record keeping and reporting requirements and standards for background investigations and licensure of employees. The racetracks would continue to be subject to annual audits.

· Gaming compacts – Compacts must establish standards for investigation, licensing and certification of gaming employees and persons who provide gaming goods or services by tribes and the state, must require minimum standards and operating procedures for gaming, must authorize audits and inspections of gaming facilities by the Arizona Department of Gaming and enforcement by the Department of compact terms, must establish technical specifications and testing and inspection procedures for slot machines and must establish surveillance requirements.



Results of Statewide Expansion of Gambling – Any changes to state law to allow expansion of gambling must be enacted by the voters.

[S]


Fish and Game
Unknown3
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 52.5%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Fish and Game
Unknown11
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 31.4%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Fish and Game
Unknown2
Election:
General

1926

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.8%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Fish and Game, Preservation
Unknown11
Election:
General

1916

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.0%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Foreclosure, Judgment
Unknown8
Election:
General

1933

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.7%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Freedom of Choice in Health Care
Proposition 101
Election:
General

2008

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.8%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Health | Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 101 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that no law shall:



1. Restrict a person’s freedom to choose a private health care plan or system of their choice.

2. Interfere with a person’s or entity’s right to pay directly for lawful medical services.

3. Impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage.

4. Impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for participation in any particular health care system or plan.


Fuel Tax, Distribution with Cities
Unknown9
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 41.1%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government | Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Funding for Early Childhood Development and Health Programs
Proposition 203
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.2%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Education: PreK-12 | Health | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



Proposition 203 would establish an Early Childhood Development and Health Fund, consisting of revenues generated by an increase in the state tax on tobacco products, donations and state appropriations. The state tax on cigarettes would increase from $1.18 per pack to $1.98 per pack, and the tax on other types of tobacco products would be increased by a similar amount.



The Early Childhood Development and Health Fund would be administered by the new Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Board (Board) appointed by the Governor, with the consent of the State Senate. 10% of the monies would be used for administrative costs and 90% would be used for program costs. No more than 10% of the program monies could be used to fund statewide grants or programs undertaken directly by the Board. The Board would distribute the remainder of the program monies in the following manner:



1. At least 35% would be spent on regional plans based on the population of children up to five years of age in the region.



2. At least 40% would be spent on regional plans based on the population of children up to five years of age in the region whose family income does not exceed one hundred per cent of the federal poverty guidelines.



3. Up to 25% of the monies could be used to fund regional programs without consideration of regional population.



Proposition 203 would prescribe requirements for programs and grants that increase the quality of and access to early childhood development and health services for children up to five years of age and their families.



Under Proposition 203, the Board would divide the state into an undetermined number of regions and would establish a regional partnership council for each region. The Board would appoint and set the compensation of the executive director. The executive director would hire regional directors and set the compensation of the regional directors. The councils would identify childhood development and health services needs and assets at a local level and spend monies that were budgeted annually by the Board.



FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT



State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal impact of certain ballot measures. Proposition 203 increases the tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products and allocates the monies generated by the tax increase to various early childhood development and health care programs. The state tax on cigarettes would increase by 80 cents per pack and the tax on other types of tobacco products would be increased by a similar amount.



The tax increase is estimated to generate $188 million in new revenue for early childhood development and health care programs during its first full year. Of this amount, at least 90% of the funds, an estimated $169.2 million, would be used for program costs and up to 10% of the funds, an estimated $18.8 million, would be used for administrative costs. Because some individuals may reduce their tobacco consumption when the price of tobacco increases, the state’s existing tobacco tax collections may decrease. The existing tobacco tax goes for health programs, prisons and the State General Fund. The existing tobacco tax collections may decrease by $23 million in the first full year of the tax increase.

[S]


Gambling, Legalized
Unknown8
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.3%)
Topic Areas:
Gambling & Lotteries

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Gaming, Cards, Dice, Slot Machines
Unknown6
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.6%)
Topic Areas:
Gambling & Lotteries

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Gasoline Tax Distribution
Unknown4
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 33.8%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


General Elections and Date
Unknown3
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 22.6%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Gubernatorial Succession
Unknown4
Election:
General

1948

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 78.4%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Hassayampa-Colorado Highway Bonds
Unknown2
Election:
General

1924

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 25.3%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Hassayampa-Colorado Highway Bonds
Unknown9
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.3%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Health Care Cost Containment
Proposition 301
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.6%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2001

A concurrent resolution enacting and ordering the submission to the people of a measure relating to health care cost containment. An act relating to public health and safety; providing for repeal of certificate of need exemptions; prescribing a moratorium on certificate of need process and exemption to moratorium; prescribing licensure exemptions; providing for review of proposed special service projects not based in a hospital; prescribing limitation on increase in hospital rates or charges; prescribing exemption; providing for a health care cost containment committee and report.

[Statutory]


Health Care Services
Proposition 106
Election:
General

2010

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.3%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Federal Government | Health | Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 106 would amend the Arizona Constitution to:



1. Prohibit any law or rule from compelling any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system.



2. Allow a person or employer to pay directly for lawful health care services without being penalized or fined.



3. Allow a health care provider to accept direct payment for lawful health care services without being penalized or fined.



4. Provide that the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule, subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person’s options.



Proposition 106 would not:



1. Affect which health care services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide.



2. Affect which health care services are permitted by law.



3. Prohibit care provided by law relating to worker’s compensation.



4. Affect laws or rules in effect as of January 1, 2009.



5. Affect the terms or conditions of any health care system unless those terms and conditions have the effect of punishing a person or employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or punishing a health care provider or hospital for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.


Highway Bonds
Unknown3
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 36.0%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.

[CA]


Highway Commission, Create
Unknown5
Election:
General

1924

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 32.1%)
Topic Areas:
State Government | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Highway Department, Finance Bill
Unknown4
Election:
General

1926

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 17.2%)
Topic Areas:
State Government | Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Highway Patrol Merit System
Unknown6
Election:
General

1948

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 73.3%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Homeowners’ Bill of Rights
Proposition 201
Election:
General

2008

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 22.0%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Civil & Constitutional Law | Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
Current law provides an alternative process for purchasers and contractors or sellers to resolve issues related to the design, construction, condition or sale of a dwelling prior to filing a lawsuit. Proposition 201 makes mandatory changes to the legal procedures for any purchaser dwelling action and for the time to sue on any improvements for real property:



1. Expands existing law to grant “prospective buyers” the rights to sue over a dwelling action.



2. Prohibits sellers or purchasers from agreeing to or allowing any “reasonable alternative dispute resolution” procedures in sales contracts.



3. A purchaser would be required to give 60 days’ notice, instead of 90 days’ notice, to a seller of the alleged defects before filing a court action against the seller. The notice must currently contain a “detailed and itemized” list of alleged defects. Proposition 201 replaces that standard with a requirement that the notice contain a description in “ordinary, non-technical terms” of defects that a purchaser of “average experience” would be expected to observe and any defects that should have been found by the seller shall be deemed a part of the notice.



4. After receiving notice of alleged defects, the measure would require rather than allow the seller to conduct an inspection of the dwelling to determine the cause of the alleged defects and what repairs or replacements would be necessary, if any, to remedy the alleged defects.



5. The seller would be required to send the purchaser a written response within 30 days, instead of 60 days, after receiving a notice from the purchaser of the purchaser’s intent to file a court action against the seller. If an offer to repair or replace any alleged defects includes an offer of compensation, the purchaser would be given the sole power to choose compensation instead of repair or replacement.



6. A seller would be required to hire a qualified licensed contractor to complete any and all repairs to the dwelling. In order for the licensed contractor to be qualified, the registrar of contractors could not have had an order against the licensed contractor in the preceding ten years.



7. The seller would be required to provide the purchaser a choice of at least three qualified licensed contractors for each contract or subcontract for repair or replacement. The right of any seller to receive attorney and expert witness fees and costs even if the seller is the successful party is eliminated.



8. A contract for the purchase of a dwelling could not require the purchaser to pay the attorney or expert fees of the seller under any circumstances. If a purchaser is awarded any relief the court must also award attorney and expert witness fees, plus taxable costs.



9. The purchase of a dwelling would include a ten year warranty of the materials and workmanship. This warranty would transfer to any subsequent purchasers within the ten year warranty period.



10. The contract for the sale of a newly constructed dwelling would need to include disclosures of a seller’s financial relationships with any financial institution, including arrangements for mortgage financing, title insurance, or property and casualty insurance, ownership interests in the financial institution, and any commissions or payments the seller may receive as a result of the transaction with the buyer. This disclosure would also need to indicate whether a mortgage arranged by the seller will be held by the seller, the financial institution or is intended to be sold to other parties. A purchaser would be allowed to sue the seller for violating these disclosure requirements.



11. A seller would not be allowed to require a deposit for a contract to sell a dwelling unless the contract allowed the purchaser to cancel the contract within 100 days and receive a refund of at least ninety-five per cent of the deposit.



12. The advertised base price of a home would need to include all fixtures or equipment shown in a seller’s model home, unless the fixtures or equipment are priced separately and are clearly and accurately disclosed to prospective buyers.



13. The time period in which a person can file an action against any person who makes improvements to any real property or dwelling, including commercial, industrial, raw land and retail would be extended to ten years instead of eight years.



14. An owner of a residential dwelling who is successful in a dwelling action against the seller would be able to receive damages such as out-of-pocket expenses for repairing and replacing defects, costs of relocation if defects make a dwelling uninhabitable, reimbursement for reasonably-documented time missed from work due to dealing with defects and compensation for a seller’s unreasonable failure to repair the defects, consequential damages and other damages that were reasonably foreseeable.


Hunting and Fishing
Proposition 109
Election:
General

2010

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.5%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 109 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that:



1. Wildlife is held in trust for the citizens of this state, whom have a right to lawfully hunt, fish and harvest the wildlife.



2. The legislature has the exclusive authority to enact laws to regulate hunting, fishing and harvesting of wildlife. The legislature may grant rule making authority to a game and fish commission. No law or rule shall unreasonably restrict hunting, fishing or harvesting of wildlife or the use of traditional means and methods for those activities. Any law or rule shall have the purpose of wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing.



3. Lawful public hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.



By its terms, nothing in Proposition 109 shall be construed to modify any law relating to trespass or property rights.


Hunting Licenses of Game Birds and Animals
Proposition 307
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.4%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing

Summary: Click for Summary


I&R Measures; Veto
Unknown5
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.1%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.

[CA]


I&R, Vote of the People Required
Unknown1
Election:
General

1916

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.2%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Increase State Legislators’ Salaries to $36,000
Proposition 304
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Other

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 33.1%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Recommendation from the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers to increase state legislators’ salaries to $36,000


Increasing the Mmaximum Debt Limit for School Districts
Proposition 106
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 35.5%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Education: PreK-12 | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
The Constitution of Arizona currently prohibits elementary school districts from being in debt in an amount more than 15% of the value of each district’s taxable property.



Proposition 106 increases the constitutional debt limit for elementary school districts from 15% to 20%. Voter approval of debt at the local elementary school district level is still required.


Indebtedness, Limit, County, City, Town or School District
Proposition 103
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 85.2%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Local Government | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary


Indian Gaming Preservation and Self-Reliance Act
Proposition 202
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.6%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Gambling & Lotteries | Health | Natural Resources | State-Tribal Relations

Summary: Click for Summary
Analysis by Legislative Council:



Proposition 202 directs the Governor to enter into tribal gaming compacts allowing Indian tribes to operate slot machines and card and table games on tribal land. Tribes would contribute 1% to 8% of “gross gaming revenue” (defined as the difference between gaming wins and losses, before deducting costs and expenses) to the state to fund programs for problem gambling, classroom size reduction, teacher salary increases, dropout prevention, instructional improvement, trauma and emergency services, wildlife conservation, tourism and local government programs benefiting the general public. These distributions are outside the regular legislative process.



Arizona has entered into gaming compacts with 17 of the state’s 21 Indian tribes. These compacts permit the tribes to operate specific gaming activities, including slot machines, that are, according to a federal court decision on appeal, illegal off of Indian reservations. These compacts begin to expire in the summer of 2003.



Proposition 202 directs the Governor to enter into a new gaming compact with each Indian tribe that requests it. All compacts must have the following provisions:

· Term – Remainder of the tribe’s current compact plus 10 years. Will be renewed for 10 years (unless the state or tribe notify the other of cancellation due to substantial noncompliance) plus an additional 3 years to provide an opportunity for negotiation of a new compact.

· Facilities – Each tribe may operate 1 to 4 gaming facilities. The exact number that each tribe may operate is set forth in Proposition 202.

· Games – Tribes may offer slot machines, blackjack, poker, wagering on horse and dog races, lottery games, bingo and keno. Each tribe may operate 475 to 1400 slot machines. Each tribe’s allotment of slot machines is set forth in Proposition 202. Each tribe may operate 75 to 100 gaming tables at each facility, depending on how close the facility is to a heavily populated city. Tribes may offer no more than 2 keno games at each facility. The number of slot machines and gaming tables allowed increases every 5 years based on changes in the state’s population.

· Transfer provisions – Tribes may transfer a portion or all of their slot machine allotments to other tribes.

· Revenue – Each tribe must contribute 1% to 8% of the tribe’s gross gaming revenue to the state. 88% of each tribe’s contribution will go to the Arizona Benefits Fund. Monies in the fund are to be used for reimbursement of administrative and regulatory expenses incurred by the Arizona Department of Gaming, to combat problem gambling, for distribution to school districts for classroom size reduction, teacher salary increases, dropout prevention programs and instructional improvement programs, for distribution to hospitals to reimburse them for unrecovered costs for trauma and emergency services, for wildlife conservation and for statewide tourism promotion. 12% of each tribe’s contribution will be distributed to cities, towns and counties to provide government services that benefit the general public.

· Disclosure – The director of the Arizona Department of Gaming will make an annual report each year which includes the aggregate gross gaming revenue for all tribes, the aggregate of all revenues deposited in the Arizona Benefits Fund and aggregate amounts contributed by tribes to cities, towns and counties.

· Regulation – All gaming activities must comply with technical standards set forth in each compact. Tribes must maintain surveillance and security logs that are open to inspection by the Arizona Department of Gaming. Tribes must license all gaming employees, but the Arizona Department of Gaming may make a recommendation on whether a person should be licensed. Tribes must maintain a list of persons barred from gaming facilities because of their criminal history or associations. Gaming employees who are not enrolled tribal members must also be certified by the state. Manufacturers, distributors and suppliers of gaming devices must be both licensed by the tribe and certified by the state. The Arizona Department of Gaming is authorized to conduct an annual compact compliance review of each tribe’s gaming operations and facilities.

· Results of Statewide Expansion of Gambling – If state law changes to allow anyone other than Indian tribes to offer slot machines or other gambling that is currently prohibited off of reservations, tribal obligations to make contributions to the state are reduced and the limits on slot machines, gaming facilities and gaming tables become null and void.

[S]


Industrial Commission, Abolishing
Unknown7
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 24.3%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Industrial Pursuits
Unknown14
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.4%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.

[S]


Industrial Pursuits
Proposition 101
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 80.6%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary


Initiative and Referendum
Proposition 100
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.1%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2002

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to initiative and referendum; providing that initiative petitions be filed six months preceding the election.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Initiative and Referendum Measures
Proposition 101
Election:
General

2004

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.2%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2022

Currently, the Arizona Constitution does not require that an initiative or a referendum include a dedicated funding source for required expenditures.



Proposition 101 would amend the Constitution to require that if an initiative or referendum measure proposes a mandatory expenditure of state revenue, establishes a fund for a specific purpose or allocates funding for a specific purpose, the measure must also designate an increased source of revenues sufficient to cover the entire present and future costs of the measure. The increased revenues cannot come from the state’s general fund or cause a reduction in general fund revenues. If the designated revenue source fails to cover the mandated spending in a fiscal year, the Legislature may reduce the expenditure of state revenues to the amount of funding actually supplied by the designated revenue source for that fiscal year.


Initiative Petitions
Proposition 104
Election:
General

2004

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 31.9%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2009

The Arizona Constitution requires that an initiative measure must be filed at least 4 months before the election at which it will be voted on. Under an existing statute, an initiative measure may be circulated up to 24 months before the election at which the measure will be voted on.



Proposition 104 would amend the Constitution:

– to require that an initiative measure must be filed at least 7 months before the election at which it will be voted on, and

– to allow an initiative measure to be circulated up to 27 months before the election at which the measure will be voted on.


Initiative Petitions
Proposition 112
Election:
General

2010

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.99%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
11/18/2010: The “no” side currently leads by 128 votes.



Proposition 112 would amend the Arizona Constitution to require that initiative petitions be filed at least six months before the date on which the measure will be voted on. Under current law, initiative petitions must be filed at least four months before the date on which the measure will be voted on.


Insurance Department Removed from Corporation Commission
Unknown6
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.7%)
Topic Areas:
Insurance | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Inventories Exempt from Taxation
Unknown3
Election:
General

1964

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.4%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Irrigation Districts
Unknown5
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.4%)
Topic Areas:
Agriculture | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Judicial Department
Proposition 108
Election:
General

1974

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.7%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
An amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to the Judicial Department; providing for the retirement of justices and judges of courts of record; restricting the peal [sic] activity of justices and judges of courts of record; providing for the nonpartisan election and appointment and approval or rejection of justices and judges of courts of record; establishing judicial nominating commissions; providing for the involuntary retirement of justices and judges of courts of record.

[CA]


Judicial Department
Proposition 103
Election:
General

2004

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.9%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1009

The Arizona Constitution creates the office of justice of the peace, but is silent on the qualifications for the office. A state statute has been interpreted by Arizona courts to require that a justice of the peace be at least 18 years of age and reside in the precinct from which the justice is elected. There is no requirement that a justice of the peace be an attorney.



Proposition 103 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that a temporary justice of the peace must have the same qualifications as a justice of the peace, except that the temporary justice of the peace does not have to reside in the precinct in which the justice will serve. Under Proposition 103, a temporary justice of the peace would not be required to be an attorney.


Juries, Relating to Number
Unknown4
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.2%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Justice of Peace Courts; Increased Jurisdiction
Proposition 102
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.5%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1003

Increases the jurisdiction of justice of the peace courts and other courts inferior to the superior court.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Labor Organizations “Fair Labor Practices Act”
Unknown6
Election:
General

1952

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.3%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Labor, Department of
Unknown9
Election:
General

1916

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 39.1%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Legalized Gambling
Unknown12
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 17.2%)
Topic Areas:
Gambling & Lotteries

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Legislative Approval of Nuclear Facilities
Proposition 200
Election:
General

1976

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 29.9%)
Topic Areas:
Energy & Electric Utilities | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
An act proposed by initiative petition to require legislative approval of any nuclear facility certified by the Arizona Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee; allowing nuclear facilities to be built when the effectiveness of safety systems is demonstrated through testing, the question of waste storage is answered and current federal limits on financial liability are removed and full compensation assured.

[S]


Legislative Redistricting
Unknown4
Election:
General

1916

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.7%)
Topic Areas:
Redistricting

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Legislative Representation Based on Population
Unknown2
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.2%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Legislative Salaries
Proposition 300
Election:
General

1980

Type:
Other

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.1%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Recommendation of the Commission on Salaries for Elected State Officers as to legislative salaries have been certified to the Secretary of State and are hereby submitted to the qualified electors for their approval or rejection.

Current legislative salary – $6,000

Salary proposed by Salary Commission – $15,000


Legislative Salaries
Proposition 300
Election:
General

1986

Type:
Other

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 37.0%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Recommendation of the Commission on Salaries for Elected State Officers as to legislative salaries have been certified to the secretary of state recommending a $20,000 annual salary to become effective January, 1987.


Legislative Salaries
Proposition 300
Election:
General

1982

Type:
Other

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 32.5%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Recommendations of the Commission on Salaries for Elected State Officers as to legislative salaries have been certified to the Secretary of State recommending an $18,900 annual salary to become effective January, 1983.


Legislative Salaries
Proposition 107
Election:
General

1974

Type:
Other

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44.4%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Recommendations of Commission on Salries for Elected State Officials as to legislative salaries have been certified to the Secretary of State and are hereby submitted to qualified electors for their approval or rejection.


Legislative Salaries
Proposition 300
Election:
General

1978

Type:
Other

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.4%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Recommendations of the Commission on Salaries for Elected State Officers as to legislative salaries have been certified to the Secretary of State and are hereby submitted to the qualified electors for their approval or rejection.


Legislative Salaries
Unknown11
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Other

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.4%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Legislators Not Eligible for Appointment to Public Office
Unknown1
Election:
General

1938

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.8%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Legislators’ Pay
Unknown1
Election:
General

1958

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 59.1%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Legislators’ Pay Increased
Unknown9
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.8%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Legislators, Compensation
Unknown1
Election:
General

1946

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.8%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Legislature
Proposition 101
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 39.7%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2001

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to the legislature; providing that the legislature may establish by law the approval of expenditures and appropriations of federal fund monies; providing that the legislature may establish by law a joint legislative committee which may exercise authority as prescribed by law relating to state and federal monies when the legislature is not in session.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Legislature, 4-Year Term
Unknown6
Election:
General

1933

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 30.3%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Legislature, 4-Year Term of Members
Unknown6
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 22.2%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Legislature, Apportionment
Unknown3
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.5%)
Topic Areas:
Redistricting

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Legislature, Apportionment
Unknown5
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.3%)
Topic Areas:
Redistricting

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Legislature, Apportionment 19 Members
Unknown1
Election:
General

1924

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 20.2%)
Topic Areas:
Redistricting

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Legislature, During Term Hold No Other Office or Job
Unknown1
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 25.2%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Legislature, Membership
Unknown2
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.7%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Legislature, Nepotism, Rules
Unknown1
Election:
General

1934

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.3%)
Topic Areas:
Ethics/Lobbying/Campaign Finance | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Legislature, No Appointments to Office during Term
Unknown7
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 21.6%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Legislature, Senate Membership
Unknown1
Election:
Special

1953

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.4%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary


Legislature, Special Session
Unknown1
Election:
General

1948

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.6%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Legislature; Apportioinment
Unknown10
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.6%)
Topic Areas:
Redistricting

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Liability of Shareholders of Banking Corporations and Associations
Unknown2
Election:
General

1956

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 64.0%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Liability of Stockholders, Banks
Unknown1
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.2%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Liens on Mines
Proposition 300
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 70.0%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary


Lieutenant Governor
Proposition 111
Election:
General

2010

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.8%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 111 would amend the Arizona Constitution to rename the office of secretary of state as the office of lieutenant governor, beginning with the term of office that starts in 2015. The lieutenant governor elected in the November 2014 general election would assume all of the duties currently performed by the secretary of state, including being first in the line of succession to replace a governor unable to serve.



The proposition provides that during the primary election, candidates for the office of lieutenant governor would run separately from candidates for the office of governor. The nominees selected at the primary election for the office of governor and lieutenant governor from the same political party would then run on a single ticket in the general election. At the general election, voters would cast a single vote for a candidate for governor, and that vote would constitute a vote for the ticket, including the candidate for lieutenant governor.



Proposition 111 also would make a technical change by consolidating two overlapping versions of Article V, section 1 of the Arizona Constitution and then repealing one of the overlapping versions.


Limit Workmen’s Compensation
Unknown7
Election:
General

1948

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 81.1%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Limiting Campaign Contributions
Proposition 200
Election:
General

1986

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.0%)
Topic Areas:
Ethics/Lobbying/Campaign Finance

Summary: Click for Summary
Limiting campaign contributions; providing for penalties and removal from office for violation of campaign contribution provisions; prescribing definitions, and amending Title 16, Chapter 6, Article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding Section 16-905.

[S]


Limiting State Appropriations to a Percentage of State Personal Income
Proposition 101
Election:
General

1978

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 78.2%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1002

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to public debt, revenue and taxation; limiting state appropriations to a percentage of state personal income; providing for the establishment of an economic estimates commission; prescribing powers and duties; providing for adjustments.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Limiting State Appropriations to a Percentage of State Personal Income
Proposition 106
Election:
General

1974

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.7%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1012

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to public debt, revenue and taxation; limiting state appropriations to a percentage of state personal income; establishing an economic estimates commission; prescribing powers and duties.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Limiting Terms of Congressmen and State Officeholders
Proposition 107
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 74.2%)
Topic Areas:
Federal Government | Legislatures | State Government | Term Limits

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 107 would amend the Arizona Constitution to limit the number of terms that a person may serve in federal and state elective offices. Currently, there are no limits on the number of terms a person may serve in these offices, except for the office of State Treasurer. This proposal requires that a person must “sit out” from that office for a full term before running for the same office again, once that person has served for the maximum time in that particular office. If this proposition is adopted, the following limitations on terms will go into effect, beginning with terms that start in 1993 and after:



United States Senate: a maximum of two consecutive terms in office, which is twelve years.



United States House of Representatives: a maximum of three consecutive terms in office, which is six terms.



Arizona State Senate and House of Representatives: a maximum of four consecutive terms in the Arizona State Senate, which is eight years, and a maximum of four consecutive terms in the Arizona House of Representatives, which is eight years.



Executive Department Offices: a maximum of two consecutive terms, which is eight years, for the office of Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Treasurer or Superintendent of Public Instruction.



Corporation Commission Member: only one six-year term on the Corporation Commission is allowed.



Mine Inspector: a maximum of four consecutive terms, which is eight years.



This proposition will still allow an elected official to run for a different elected office, even if that person has already served the maximum number of terms in a single office. For example, a person could serve four consecutive terms in the Arizona House of Representatives (the maximum number of terms permitted under this proposition) and would then be able to run for the Arizona State Senate or for any other office.

[CA]


Limiting the Maximimum Amount of Ad Valorem Tax on All Taxable Property
Proposition 106
Election:
General

1980

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 30.2%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
An initiative proposed to amend the Constitution of Arizona limiting the maximum amount of ad valorem tax on all taxable property; defining full cash value; limiting annual increases in assessment of all taxable property; and limit all levels of Arizona government in their authority to raise any other taxes without a two-thirds majority consent of the people or the representatives.

[CA]


Liquor to Indians, Prohibiting
Unknown
Election:
General

1954

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.9%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | State-Tribal Relations

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Livestock Code
Unknown3
Election:
General

1926

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 20.5%)
Topic Areas:
Agriculture | Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Local Debt Limits
Proposition 103
Election:
General

1974

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.1%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1010

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to local debt limits; providing for a debt limit of twenty percent for unified school districts.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Local Option
Unknown5
Election:
General

1916

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 30.9%)
Topic Areas:
Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Local Option Elections
Unknown14
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 22.8%)
Topic Areas:
Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Elections | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Local Property Tax Levies
Proposition 101
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.7%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



The Arizona Constitution limits the amount of primary property tax that a county, city, town or community college district may levy. Each taxing entity’s limit was established in 1980, and that limit has increased by 2% each year, plus any new construction. Counties, cities, towns and community college districts not at their levy limit may increase primary property taxes to the maximum levy limit without voter approval.



Proposition 101, known as the “2006 Taxpayer Protection Act”, would amend the Arizona Constitution to remove unused taxing capacity and reset each taxing entity’s limit to the actual tax levy of that county, city, town or community college district in 2005. Beginning in 2007, the new levy limit would increase by 2% per year, plus any new construction.


Locomotives Engineers, Experience
Proposition 303
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Undecided
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary


Locomotives, Headlights
Proposition 302
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.3%)
Topic Areas:
Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary


Maintenance of Schools
Unknown8
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 39.4%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Marriage
Proposition 102
Election:
General

2008

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.2%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 102 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.


Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
Proposition 301
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 24.6%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Ordering the submission to the people of an act relating to general provisions; providing that the third Monday in January is a legal holiday known as Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, and amending Section 1-301, Arizona Revised Statutes.


Medical Liberty, Medical Examiners
Unknown2
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 26.7%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Medical Marijuana
Proposition 203
Election:
General

2010

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.1%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 203 would allow a “qualifying patient” who has a “debilitating medical condition” to obtain an “allowable amount of marijuana” from a “nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary” and to possess and use the marijuana to treat or alleviate the debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the condition. The Arizona Department of Health Services (DHS) would be required to adopt and enforce a regulatory system for the distribution of marijuana for medical use, including a system for approving, renewing and revoking the registration of qualifying patients, designated caregivers, nonprofit dispensaries and dispensary agents. The costs of the regulatory system would be paid from application and renewal fees collected, civil penalties imposed and private donations received pursuant to this proposition.



A “qualifying patient” is defined as a person who has been diagnosed by a physician (a doctor of medicine, osteopathy, naturopathic medicine or homeopathy) as having one of the following debilitating medical conditions:

1. Cancer.

2. Glaucoma.

3. Positive status for human immunodeficiency virus.

4. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

5. Hepatitis C.

6. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

7. Crohn’s disease.

8. Agitation of Alzheimer’s disease.

9. A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition that produces any of the following:

a. Cachexia or wasting syndrome.

b. Severe and chronic pain.

c. Severe nausea.

d. Seizures (including those characteristic of epilepsy).

e. Severe and persistent muscle spasms (including those characteristic of multiple sclerosis).

10. Any other medical condition added by DHS through a public petition process.



In order to register with DHS, a qualifying patient must submit a signed written certification issued by the physician that states the physician’s professional opinion that the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or symptom-relieving benefits from the medical use of marijuana to treat or alleviate a debilitating medical condition. The certification must specify the debilitating medical condition and must be made in the course of a physician-patient relationship after the physician has completed a full assessment of the patient’s medical history. If the qualifying patient is under 18 years of age, the patient’s custodial parent or legal guardian must submit written certifications from two physicians and the custodial parent or legal guardian must consent in writing to control the patient’s medical use of the marijuana.



A qualifying patient who is registered with DHS (or a registered designated caregiver on behalf of the qualifying patient) may obtain up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana in a 14-day period from a registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary. If the qualifying patient’s home is located more than 25 miles from the nearest nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary, the patient or designated caregiver may cultivate up to 12 marijuana plants in an enclosed, locked facility.



A registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary must be operated on a not-for-profit basis, but may receive payment for all expenses incurred in its operation. DHS may not issue more than one nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary registration certificate for every ten pharmacy permits issued by the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy under current law. The dispensary may cultivate marijuana only in an enclosed, locked facility and may acquire marijuana from a registered qualifying patient or designated caregiver if the patient or caregiver is not compensated for the marijuana. This proposition specifies various security, record-keeping and verification requirements relating to the operation of dispensaries.



Proposition 203 would generally provide that any person who acts in conformity with the requirements of the proposition is not subject to any governmentally imposed sanction relating to the medical use of marijuana. This proposition would prohibit certain discriminatory practices, including the following:



1. A school or landlord may not refuse to enroll or lease to a person registered pursuant to this proposition unless failing to do so would cause the school or landlord to lose a monetary or licensing benefit under federal law.



2. An employer may not discriminate against a person registered pursuant to this proposition in hiring, terminating or imposing employment conditions unless failing to do so would cause the employer to lose a monetary or licensing benefit under federal law. Further, an employer may not penalize a qualifying patient registered pursuant to this proposition for a positive drug test for marijuana, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the employment premises or during hours of employment.



By its terms, Proposition 203 would not:



1. Authorize a person to undertake any task under the influence of marijuana that constitutes negligence or professional malpractice.



2. Authorize possessing or using medical marijuana on a school bus, on the grounds of a preschool, primary school or high school or in a correctional facility.



3. Authorize smoking marijuana on public transportation or in a public place.



4. Authorize operating, navigating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, aircraft or motorboat while under the influence of marijuana. A registered qualifying patient would not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of marijuana in the person’s system that appears in a concentration insufficient to cause impairment.



5. Require a government medical assistance program or private health insurer to reimburse a person for costs associated with the medical use of marijuana.



6. Require an owner of private property to allow the use of marijuana on that property.



7. Require an employer to allow the ingestion of marijuana in the workplace.



8. Prevent a nursing care or other residential or inpatient healthcare facility from adopting reasonable restrictions on the provision, storage and use of marijuana by residents or patients.


Merit System for Peace Officers
Unknown11
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.8%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Merit System for Public Employees
Unknown10
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 37.2%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Local Government | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Miami County
Unknown15
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 16.4%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.

[S]


Mine Inspector, 4-Year Term
Unknown5
Election:
General

1933

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 36.8%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Mobile Homes Taxed Ad Valorem Property Tax
Unknown4
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 73.4%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Motor Vehicle Department, Create
Unknown10
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 26.7%)
Topic Areas:
State Government | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspections
Proposition 300
Election:
General

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.9%)
Topic Areas:
Environmental Protection | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
SB 1203

An act relating to public health and safety; removing provisions relating to motor vehicle emissions inspection; removing annual emissions inspections of motor vehicles; removing provisions relating to registration to avoid compliance; providing that any contingent liability occasioned by the repeal of such provisions be determined and satisfied according to law.

[Statutory]


Motor Vehicle Fuel Distribution
Unknown6
Election:
General

1946

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.2%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Municipal Bonds, Comm. or Expense
Unknown5
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 30.1%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Local Government | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Municipal Debt
Proposition 104
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 59.42%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



The Arizona Constitution limits the amount of debt that counties, cities, towns, school districts and other municipal corporations may incur to 6% of the value of the taxable property in the political subdivision unless qualified electors in the political subdivision approve additional indebtedness of up to 15%. In addition, the Constitution permits incorporated cities and towns, with the approval of qualified electors, to incur debt up to 20% of the value of taxable property in the city or town to supply water, light and sewers and to acquire land for parks and preserves.



Proposition 104 would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow incorporated cities and towns to include debt for the acquisition and development of public safety, law enforcement, fire and emergency facilities and streets and transportation facilities in the 20% debt limit, upon voter approval.


Municipal Debt Limits
Proposition 100
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 4176%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
(HCR 2010)

Analysis by Legislative Council:



Article IX, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution limits the amount of debt that counties, cities, towns, school districts and other municipal corporations may incur to six percent of the value of the taxable property in the political subdivision unless qualified electors who are also
property taxpayers in the political subdivision approve additional indebtedness of up to fifteen percent. In addition, the Constitution permits incorporated cities and towns, with the approval of qualified electors who are also property taxpayers, to incur debt up to twenty percent of the value of taxable property in the city or town to supply water, light and sewers and to acquire land for parks and preserves.



Proposition 100 would amend Article IX, section 8 to do all of the following:

(1) Remove the requirement for voting in political subdivision elections to approve indebtedness that the voters must be property taxpayers, but retain the requirement that they be qualified electors. This change would conform the Arizona Constitution to a United States
Supreme Court decision.

(2) Specify that the last assessment for state and county purposes must be used in determining the value of taxable property in incorporated cities and towns.

(3) Allow incorporated cities and towns to include debt for the construction, reconstruction, improvement or acquisition of streets, highways or bridges and the acquisition of interests in land for rights-of-way for streets, highways or bridges in the twenty percent debt
limit, with voter approval.


Naturopathic Physicians
Unknown2
Election:
General

1934

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 37.1%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Nominations
Proposition 100
Election:
General

1980

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 69.1%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1002

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to nomination of incumbent of elective office to another local, state or federal office.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Noncitizens; Employment of
Unknown11
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.6%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.

[S]


Nuclear Freeze
Proposition 201
Election:
General

1982

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.7%)
Topic Areas:
Federal Government | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
An initiative requiring the governor of the state of Arizona to write a specified communication; and to declare the last Sunday in May as Peace Sunday.

[S]


Nuisance, Lewdness, Prostitution
Unknown7
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 68.0%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Old Age and Mothers’ Pension
Unknown9
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.6%)
Topic Areas:
Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.

[S]


Old Age Assistance
Unknown2
Election:
General

1944

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.6%)
Topic Areas:
Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Open Elections/Open Government Act
Proposition 121
Election:
General

2012

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 32.8% (Unofficial))
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Beginning with the 2014 elections, Proposition 121 would amend the Arizona Constitution by eliminating the longstanding primary election that allows each recognized political party in Arizona to select its own nominee for the general election. In its place would be a primary election system in which registered voters may vote for candidates regardless of political affiliation. A funding source has not been identified that will pay the cost of the open top two primary election that will replace the current system. Additionally, the number of candidates who appear on the general election ballot would be limited to only the two who receive the most votes and any qualified write-in candidates, except that, for any office to which more than one candidate shall be elected, the number of candidates who will compete in the general election shall be the number of candidates to be elected times two. Currently, all candidates who receive the most votes in their party primary appear on the general election ballot. This often results in more than two candidates appearing on the general election ballot.



Proposition 121 would not apply to the election of United States President, nor to any office for which political party affiliation may not appear on the ballot.



Under Proposition 121, the signature requirement for candidates wishing to run in the open primary election for an office would be based on the total votes cast for all candidates for that office at the previous general election and would be the same for all candidates regardless of party affiliation or lack of affiliation. Each candidate who declared a party preference on their voter registration form would have that preference listed, up to twenty characters, on the nominating petition and on the primary and general election ballots. If no party preference is declared on a candidate’s registration form, no preference would be listed on the petition and ballots. All government-issued voter education materials and ballots would contain a notice that any political party registration listed for a candidate is not an indication that the candidate has been nominated or endorsed by that political party.



Proposition 121 provides that individuals may organize or join political parties and that political parties may elect party officers, support or oppose candidates and otherwise participate in all elections, if the party activity is not paid for or subsidized using public funds. All voters, candidates and political parties must be treated equally, regardless of party affiliation or lack of affiliation. When registering to vote, voters would be allowed to state any party preference in their own words and would not be limited to selecting from a list of recognized political parties or affiliations.



The proposition leaves to future Legislatures and governing bodies a number of issues, including who will have access to the statewide voter database, how vacancies will be handled, what percentage of votes will be set each year as the number of petition signatures required by each candidate for each office to qualify for the ballot, how to pay for the two tier election and how to pay for the cost of implementation and conforming legislation. The Department of Justice must pre-clear any changes.


Pardons and Paroles
Unknown4
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 31.0%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Pardons and Reprieves, Penal Codes Established
Unknown16
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.2%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary


Passenger Rates
Proposition 305
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 75.4%)
Topic Areas:
Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary


Passenger Rates, Intrastate
Unknown17
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.2%)
Topic Areas:
Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary


Payday Loan Reform Act
Proposition 200
Election:
General

2008

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.4% )
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Currently, state law regulates companies that provide deferred presentment services. Deferred presentment is a service where a company makes a loan to a customer, accepts the customer’s check in return and agrees to hold the check for at least five days before presenting the check for payment or deposit. These services are more commonly known as “payday loans”.



The deferred presentment licensing program in the current law is set to terminate on July 1, 2010. Proposition 200 would continue to allow deferred presentment services indefinitely because it would repeal the program’s termination date.



A company or individual providing deferred presentment services is licensed by this state to provide those services and is referred to as a “licensee”. Proposition 200 would expand the scope of deferred presentment services to include electronic debit agreements and would further make the following changes to the regulation of companies that provide deferred presentment services:



1. A licensee would be:

a. Prohibited from offering deferred presentment services for longer than 35 days.

b. Prohibited from entering into a new deferred presentment transaction with a customer until the next business day following the completion of any prior transaction.

c. Required to provide the deferred presentment agreement in English or Spanish, as requested by the customer. The agreement must contain contact information for the state agency that regulates licensees.

d. Prohibited from charging a fee to extend the presentment or deposit of a check, but would not be limited on the number of times the presentment or deposit could be extended.

e. Prohibited from charging a dishonored check fee more than:

i. Twice for a check returned due to insufficient funds.

ii. Once for a check returned due to a closed account or a stop payment order.

f. Required to enter into a repayment plan with the customer if the customer requests it before the deferred presentment transaction is due. The repayment plan would divide the customer’s remaining balance into four substantially equal payments. A licensee would not be able to assess additional fees or interest on the outstanding balance or seek to collect any amount due except pursuant to the terms of the repayment plan so long as the customer fulfills his repayment plan obligation; otherwise, the customer could be taken to collections. A customer’s obligation under the deferred presentment services agreement would be fulfilled if the repayment plan is completed. A customer would only be allowed to enter into a repayment plan once every 365 days. A customer’s participation in and completion of a repayment plan would be reported to a consumer credit reporting service (an entity that assembles or evaluates consumer credit information for the purpose of providing consumer credit reports to third parties).

g. Prohibited from entering into a deferred presentment arrangement with a customer who has an outstanding, incomplete repayment plan. Before October 15, 2009, Proposition 200 would allow a licensee to rely on a customer’s written representation that the customer does not have an outstanding, incomplete repayment plan. The superintendent of the state agency that regulates licensees would be required, by October 15, 2009, to identify consumer credit reporting services that meet certain criteria and can be used by companies to verify whether a consumer has an outstanding, incomplete repayment plan and is eligible or ineligible for deferred presentment services.



2. A licensee would not be prohibited from making certain other loans of money or extension of credit such as consumer revolving loans and home equity revolving loans.



3. An applicant for a license would be required to maintain a minimum net worth in cash or cash equivalents of at least $50,000 per licensed location, up to a maximum required net worth of $1,000,000.



4. A licensee would be civilly liable under state law for violating a federal law that provides consumer credit protections for active members of the military and their families (“covered borrowers”).
[S]


Peddlers License
Unknown4
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 41.7%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Permanent Adjustment of Political Subdivision Expenditure Limitation Bases
Proposition 102
Election:
General

1986

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.8%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to public debt, revenue and taxation; providing for elections to permanently adjust political subdivision expenditure limitation bases limits at a regularly scheduled election for the nomination or election of the members of the governing board or at a general election.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Permanent State School Fund: Apportionment of by Legislature
Unknown4
Election:
General

1964

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 70.1%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Physical Education
Unknown6
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.9%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Pre-Marital Blood Test
Unknown5
Election:
General

1956

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 85.0%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Preemption by the State of Income & Luxury Taxation
Unknown10
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.1%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Preferential Treatment or Discrimination Prohibition
Proposition 107
Election:
General

2010

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 59.5%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Education: Higher Ed | Labor & Employment | Local Government | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 107 would amend the Arizona Constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to or discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting. This proposition does not prohibit bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education or public contracting. This proposition would not prohibit action necessary to prevent a loss of federal funding to the state and would not invalidate any existing court orders. The remedies for violations of this proposition would be the same as for violations of current antidiscrimination laws. This proposition applies to the state, counties, cities, towns, special districts and other political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, public universities and community college districts.



This proposition would apply only to actions that are taken after the effective date of this proposition.


Prescribing Jurisdiction of Superior Court in Civil Actions
Unknown7
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 69.3%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Presidential Electors: Voting for by Nonresidents
Unknown3
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 66.3%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Primary Election, 51% Elec.
Unknown3
Election:
General

1924

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 27.7%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Private Property Rights Protection Act
Proposition 207
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 64.8%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



Eminent domain is the power of the government to take private property for public use. Proposition 207 sets forth the rights of a property owner when the state or a local government exercises the power of eminent domain. (These rights are in addition to the current statutory and constitutional rights.)



Proposition 207 would limit the use of eminent domain to situations where eminent domain is authorized by the state and the property taken is put to a public use. The proposition defines “public use” to include:



1. The use of land by the general public or by public agencies.



2. The use of land for utilities.



3. The acquisition of property to eliminate a direct threat to the public health or safety caused by the current condition of the property.



4. The acquisition of abandoned property.



Proposition 207 excludes from the definition of public use the public benefits of economic development.



The Arizona constitution prohibits a government from taking private property, unless the government provides just compensation to the property owner. Proposition 207 provides that as just compensation when a person’s primary residence is taken by the government, the person must be provided a comparable replacement dwelling that is decent, safe and sanitary. The property owner may choose to receive money compensation instead of the replacement dwelling.



Proposition 207 also provides that a property owner is entitled to just compensation if the value of a person’s property is reduced by the enactment of a land use law. A land use law is defined as a law that regulates the use or division of land, such as municipal zoning laws, or regulates accepted farming or forestry practices. The proposition sets out seven types of land use laws that are exempt from the compensation requirement.



If a property owner were successful in an eminent domain law suit, Proposition 207 would require the government to pay the land owner’s attorney fees and costs. If a property owner were successful in a law suit for reduction in the property’s value, the court could award attorney fees and costs.



FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT



State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal impact of certain ballot measures. Proposition 207 may increase the cost to state and local government to acquire private property for public use in some circumstances. The proposition also requires a property owner to be compensated, including reasonable attorney fees, if the value of a person’s property is reduced by the enactment of a land use law.



The proposition also prohibits the use of eminent domain for economic development. If state and local governments reduce their use of eminent domain as a result, their compensation costs may decline.



The overall fiscal impact will be affected by how the proposition affects the level of economic development in a community.

[S]


Privilege Tax, Division
Unknown
Election:
General

1942

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.5%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Probation for Methamphetamine Offenses
Proposition 301
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.0%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



In 1996, the voters passed the Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996. This law states that in most cases, a person who is convicted for the first or second time of personal possession or use of a controlled substance, including methamphetamine, is eligible for probation and cannot be sentenced to a term in jail or prison. Only when a person has been convicted three times of personal possession or use of a controlled substance, including methamphetamine, can that person be sentenced to jail or prison. However, that person may be eligible for probation pursuant to the general probation laws for convicted persons.



Proposition 301 would amend the current law so that a person who is convicted for the first or second time of personal possession or use of methamphetamine can be sentenced to a term in jail or prison.



This change in the law will allow judges to use a jail term as a condition of probation to force methamphetamine users to comply with court mandated drug treatment and rehabilitation.

[S]


Probation; Drug Crimes
Proposition 302
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 69.3%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy

Summary: Click for Summary
(HCR 2013)

Analysis by Legislative Council:



In 1996, the voters passed the Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996. The Act made several changes to laws regarding drug-related crimes. The current law states that in most cases, a person who is convicted for the first time of personal possession or use of a controlled substance is eligible for probation and is not subject to incarceration. In addition, as a condition of probation, the offender must attend a drug treatment or education program. If the offender violates probation, the court may impose additional conditions of probation, including intensified drug treatment, community service, intensive probation or home arrest, but may not impose a term of incarceration for the probation violation. Additionally, a person who has been convicted three times of personal possession or use of a controlled substance may be sentenced to a term of incarceration or may be eligible for probation pursuant to other statutes in effect.



Proposition 302 would expand current law so that a person who is convicted for the first time of personal possession or use of drug paraphernalia is also eligible for probation and drug treatment and is not subject to incarceration.



Proposition 302 would allow a court to impose a term of incarceration on a person who is on probation for a first offense involving personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia but only if the offender violated probation by committing another drug-related offense or violated a court order relating to drug treatment.



This proposition would also allow the probation department or a prosecutor to petition the court to revoke an offender’s probation if the offender fails or refuses to participate in drug treatment while on probation. If the court revokes probation, the offender would be sentenced under Arizona’s drug laws. In addition, any person who has been convicted of personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia, regardless of the number of prior convictions, would be subject to incarceration and would not be eligible for probation if the person refuses drug treatment as a term of probation or rejects probation as a sentencing alternative. However, even if the person is not eligible for probation under the personal possession or use laws, the court may still impose probation if the person is otherwise eligible for probation under the general probation laws for convicted persons.


Procedure for the Reading of Bills
Unknown1
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.0%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Prohibit State and Local Governments From Increasing or Enacting Taxes on Services Amendment
Proposition 126
Election:
General

2018

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 64.2%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
The measures bans any level of government in Arizona from increasing or enacting taxes of services including personal-oriented activities such as salon services, pet grooming, amusement, fitness activities, financial-oriented activities, real estate transactions, banking, investment management, healthcare-oriented activities, and doctor visits.


Prohibiting Abortion Except to Save the Mother’s Life or in Cases of Reported Rape or Incest
Proposition 110
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 31.5%)
Topic Areas:
Abortion

Summary: Click for Summary
The Constitution of the United States has been interpreted to establish a woman’s right to have an abortion, subject to limited exceptions. Proposition 110 would amend the Arizona Constitution to prevent all abortions in this state except to save a woman’s life. Additioinally, Proposition 110 would direct the Arizona legislature to adopt laws to permit abortions only where pregnancy is the result of reported rape or reported incest. Proposition 110 would also prohibit the use of public money to pay for an abortion, unless the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.



Proposition 110 would require any judge, upon request, to appoint a lawyer to act as a special guardian to represent “preborn children” in protection their rights. Proposition 110 states that it “shall not affect contraceptives.”



Proposition 110 would not subject any woman to criminal prosecution or civil liability for undergoing an abortion.



The U.S. Supreme Court has held that, while a state may in some circumstances regulate a woman’s decision about whether to have an abortion, a state may not generally prohibit abortions. The Arizona Constitution also contains a right to privacy. No court has addressed the question of whether this provision in the Arizona Constitution protects a woman’s decision to have an abortion. However, the right to privacy has been held to encompass an individual’s right to refuse medical treatment.



If passed, Proposition 110 would eliminate any argument that the “right to privacy” in the Arizona Constitution protections a woman’s choice of whether to have an abortion. However, because the United States Constitution, as presently interpreted, protections a woman’s decision to have an abortion, parts of this proposition would not be effective unless and until the United States Supreme Court decides that the “right to privacy” in the United States Constitution does not encompass the right to have an abortion. Other parts of this proposition may become effective immediately.

[CA]


Prohibiting Bail
Proposition 101
Election:
General

1982

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 81.0%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2008

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to crimes; prohibiting bail for person s charged with or convicted of a felony and hwo pose a danger to society.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Prohibiting Employers from Intentionally or Knowingly Employing an Unauthorized Alien
Proposition 202
Election:
General

2008

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.8%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Criminal Justice | Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 202 makes various changes to the state laws prohibiting an employer from intentionally or knowingly employing an alien who is not authorized under federal law to work in the United States. Under Proposition 202, the definition of “knowingly employ an unauthorized alien” would be amended to require actual knowledge by an owner or officer of the employer.



Proposition 202 would provide that a state, county or local official, in attempting to verify with the federal government if a person is authorized to work in the United States, shall rely solely upon the processes and procedures set forth in federal law. Additionally it allows the court to take judicial notice of the federal government’s determination of legal work eligibility and provides the court may request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial verification pursuant to federal law.



Proposition 202 allows any person to file a written and signed complaint with the attorney general or county attorney that an employer in this state was either intentionally or knowingly employing an unauthorized alien in this state. If a person files a false or frivolous complaint, the person would be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. If the complaint is found to be valid, the appropriate federal and local officials would be notified by the attorney general or the county attorney. The county attorney would be authorized to bring an action against an employer only for violations that occur beginning January 1, 2009.



For the first knowing violation in a three-year period, the court shall:

– Confirm that the employer has terminated or will terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state.

– Order the employer to be subject to a three-year probationary period and file quarterly reports with the county attorney of each new employee hired at the location where the unauthorized alien performed work.

– Order the employer to sign an affidavit stating that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not knowingly or intentionally employ any unauthorized aliens in this state. If the affidavit is not signed, all licenses held by the employer that are necessary for the employer to operate the employer’s business at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work would be suspended until the affidavit is signed. If there are no licenses held by the employer specific to that business location, the court would be required to order the suspension of all licenses held by the employer at the employer’s primary place of business in this state. The court would be authorized to order that the business licenses of the employer be suspended for no more than ten days if certain factors are present.



For a first intentional violation in a five-year period, the court shall:

– Confirm that the employer has terminated or will terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state.

– Order the employer to be subject to a five-year probationary period and file quarterly reports with the county attorney of each new employee hired at the location where the unauthorized alien performed work.

– Order the employer to sign an affidavit stating that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not knowingly or intentionally employ any unauthorized aliens in this state. If the affidavit is not signed, all licenses held by the employer that are necessary for the employer to operate the employer’s business at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work would be suspended until the affidavit is signed. If there are no licenses held by the employer specific to that business location, the court would be required to order the suspension of all licenses held by the employer at the employer’s primary place of business in this state.

– Order the appropriate agencies to suspend all of the employer’s business licenses as described above for a minimum of 10 days.



For a second knowing or intentional violation during a probationary period, Proposition 202 would require the court to order the permanent revocation of all licenses held by the employer that are necessary for the employer to operate the employer’s business at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If there are no licenses held by the employer specific to that business location, the court would be required to order the permanent revocation of all licenses held by the employer at the employer’s primary place of business in this state.



Proposition 202 creates a non-rebuttable presumption of innocence if an employer verifies work eligibility through the E-verify system or other method as provided under federal law. Additionally, it creates an affirmative defense of innocence if an employer establishes that it complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a or 1324b.



Under Proposition 202, an employer would not be required to take any action that would violate federal or state law.



Beginning January 1, 2009, Proposition 202 would require every employer, after hiring an employee, to verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the federal employment electronic verification (E-Verify) program or through other documentation procedures authorized by federal law.



Proposition 202 would authorize the attorney general to bring an action against an employer if the employer has more than four employees, pays hourly wages or salary in cash and fails to do any of the following:

– Withhold required taxes from the employee’s compensation.

– Report the hiring of an employee to the state.

– Make the required contributions for unemployment compensation benefits.

– Provide employees coverage for workers compensation.



If the employer is found guilty of any of these actions, the court would be required to enter a judgment against the employer for triple the amount of money that the employer failed to pay or $5,000 per employee for which a violation was committed, whichever is greater. All sums paid by the employer would be remitted to the Arizona department of education and the Arizona department of health services for distribution to school districts and emergency room providers to use to offset the costs of illegal immigration.



Proposition 202 would expand the crime of identity theft to include a person who knowingly takes or uses personal identifying information of another person or entity without the consent of that other person or entity with the intent to obtain or continue employment. The crime of identity theft would also be expanded to include a person who knowingly accepts any personal identifying information of another person from an individual knowing that they are not the identified person and uses the information for work authorization under federal law. Identity theft is a class 4 felony.



Proposition 202 would expand the crime of aggravated identity theft to include the theft of two or more identities or an identity theft that causes at least $1,000 in economic loss. Aggravated identity theft is a class 3 felony.



Proposition 202 would expand the crime of trafficking in the identity of another person or entity to include a person who sells personal identifying information of another person or entity with the intent of allowing another person to obtain or continue employment. Trafficking is a class 2 felony.


Prohibiting Strikes by Public Employees
Proposition 102
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44.2%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Local Government | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1012

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to public employees; prohibiting strikes by public employees; prescribing sanctions against striking public employees and rights to appeal termination; prescribing prohibition on certain methods and procedures for determining compensation, hours and conditions of employment of public employees; prescribing reservation of authority for public employers; prescribing definitions.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Prohibition
Unknown3
Election:
General

1916

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.1%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Prohibition Elections, Eight Years Between Elections
Unknown2
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 37.8%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.

[CA]


Prohibition of Any New Property Sale or Transfer Tax
Proposition 100
Election:
General

2008

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 76.8%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 100 would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit the state or any county, city, town or other political subdivision of the state from directly or indirectly imposing any new tax, fee or other assessment on the sale, purchase, transfer or other conveyance of any interest in real property (such as homes and other real estate). This proposed measure would not affect any tax, fee or other assessment in existence prior to this year.


Prohibition on Certain Uses of Public Financing Accounts and Removal of Citizens Clean Election Commission’s Rule-Making Exemption Measure
Proposition 306
Election:
General

2018

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.2%)
Topic Areas:
Elections | Ethics/Lobbying/Campaign Finance

Summary: Click for Summary
Prohibits candidates for office from using public financing accounts (often called “clean election accounts) to give funds to either political parties or tax-exempt 501(a) organizations that can engage in actions to influence elections. The measure also removes the Citizens Clean Election Commission’s (CCEC) exemption from rule-making requirements. The CCEC is currently empowered to adopt its own rules. This measure is required to go before voters because it would amend Proposition 200, which voters passed previously.


Prohibition, Penalty
Unknown1
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.2%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.

[CA]


Prohibition, Repeal
Unknown3
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.8%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Property Appraisal & Assessment, Board
Unknown5
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 35.1%)
Topic Areas:
State Government | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Property Tax Limitation
Proposition 117
Election:
General

2012

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.7% (Unofficial))
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 117 would amend the Arizona Constitution to cap the annual increase in the value of real property used to calculate property taxes to 5% over the value of the property for the previous year, beginning with the 2015 tax year. Currently, there is no limit on full cash value. This limitation would apply to property values used in determining all property taxes on the real property.


Proposing an Act Concerning the Use of Uniform Gaming Compacts with Indian Tribes
Proposition 201
Election:
General

1996

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.9%)
Topic Areas:
Gambling & Lotteries | State-Tribal Relations

Summary: Click for Summary
Pursuant to federal law, an Indian tribe that wants to operate certain gaming activities (gambling) may do so only pursuant to an agreement called a “compact” entered into between the tribe and the state where the tribe’s lands are located. In 1993 and 1994, Arizona entered into gaming compacts with 16 of the state’s 21 Indian tribes. These compacts permit the tribes to operate specified gaming activities, including slot machines, that are illegal off of Indian reservations.



However, in 1994, a federal court ruled that states do not have to allow Indian tribes to conduct any gaming activities that are prohibited off of Indian reservations. While the federal decision does not have an impact on the compacts that have already been signed, the Governor has since declined to negotiate any more compacts with tribes for the operation of gaming activities other than betting on horse and dog races or the operation of a lottery, both of which are permitted off of reservations under Arizona law.



Proposition 201 would require the state, through the Governor, to enter into gaming compacts with eligible tribes on similar terms and conditions as the compacts entered into before the 1994 court decision. Specifically, the new compacts would allow eligible tribes to conduct all gaming activities permitted under the existing compacts. Proposition 201 defines an eligible tribe as any tribe in this state that has not yet entered into a gaming compact. If Proposition 201 passes, the Governor would have to enter into a compact within 30 days after the governing body of an eligible tribe submits a written request for a compact.

[S]


Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona Relating to State Lands
Proposition 106
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.7%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



In 1910, the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act, allowing Arizona to become a state. The Enabling Act granted Arizona 10.9 million acres of land, referred to as “state trust land”, to be held in trust for the benefit of the named beneficiaries, primarily the public schools, as well as other public institutions (colleges, hospitals, prisons, etc.). Both the Enabling Act and the Arizona Constitution provide that the state can lease or sell trust land, and the natural products (timber, minerals, etc.) of the land, to the “highest and best bidder” at advertised public auction and lands and products offered for sale must be appraised at and sold for not less than “true value”. Proposition 106 would amend the Arizona Constitution to:



1. Create a new seven member Board of Trustees appointed by the Governor, with the consent of the State Senate, to plan and dispose of all state trust lands. A majority of the members must have substantial involvement with public schools, such as university governance or administration, teaching or education advocacy. The costs associated with the Board are to be paid with a portion of the proceeds (5% – 8%) derived from the sale or lease of trust lands. Currently, all of the proceeds go to benefit schools and other beneficiaries of the state trust.



2. Create a Conservation Reserve, consisting of approximately 694,000 acres of state trust land, to be managed by a Board of Trustees. This trust land would no longer be available for sale to provide revenue for schools and other public institutions, although some revenue from leasing may be realized.



3. Generally the land in the Conservation Reserve must be restricted against “development” and be managed in a manner consistent with “conservation”, but not required to be accessible to the public unless and until conveyed out of the state land trust, as those terms are defined in this proposal, and subject to the following:

a. Any lease, right-of-way or other use in existence when this provision is enacted may continue.

b. “Educational” reserve land may be conveyed to the Arizona Board of Regents for research and education. Buildings may be constructed on up to 50 acres of educational reserve land to support university programs.

c. “Permanent” reserve land may be conveyed by the Trustees to state or local governmental entities without payment, unless the land is leased for grazing.

d. “Provisional” reserve land may be conveyed by the Trustees to federal, state or local governmental entities or nonprofit conservation organizations upon payment of the true value of the land. Payment may be made in monetary or other forms of value that can be demonstrated by an appraisal. Provisional reserve lands not conveyed within a specified period of time may be removed from the Conservation Reserve and then treated in the same manner as other state trust land.



4. Allow the Board of Trustees to adopt a method for determining the “highest and best bid” that does not require the highest return to the state trust.



5. Provide that the Board of Trustees may convey title to state trust lands in exchange for an agreement to receive a share of anticipated gross revenues generated by the subsequent lease or sale of the land.



6. Allow the Board of Trustees to grant public rights-of-way over state trust land, without conducting an advertised public auction, in exchange for any form of value that can be demonstrated by an appraisal.



7. Require that land use planning for state trust lands be prepared in conjunction with the county, city or town where the land is located, according to generally applicable regulations that apply equally to similar private property in the jurisdiction. If the land use plan designates a part of the trust land for conservation, the Board of Trustees may convey that portion of the land to a state or local governmental entity without compensation, if the total compensation for all of the trust land subject to the plan is or will be at least equal to the “true value” of all of the subject land. The designated conservation land must be restricted against “development” and be managed in a manner consistent with “conservation” but not required to be accessible to the public unless and until conveyed out of the state land trust.



8. Allow the Board of Trustees to set aside a portion of the proceeds generated from state trust lands for the administration, management, planning and disposition of the land.



Proposition 106 does not become fully effective unless the United States Congress amends the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act prior to 2009 to authorize the changes contained in this proposal.



FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT



State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal impact of certain ballot measures. Proposition 106 contains provisions that may increase future revenues to state trust land beneficiaries and other provisions that may reduce revenues that otherwise would have been received by these beneficiaries. The proposition sets aside a percent of the proceeds from the disposition of state trust land for trust land administration. This provision may initially provide up to $6 million annually from proceeds that would otherwise have been invested for the beneficiaries. The additional administrative funding may permit the state to prepare trust land parcels for sale or lease more quickly, which may accelerate revenues to beneficiaries. The value of land generally appreciates over time. If state trust land is sold earlier under the proposition, the longer term fiscal impact may depend, at least in part, on the rate of investment returns of the accelerated revenue compared to the sale price at a later date.



The proposition would permit certain parcels of trust land to be used for conservation without compensation. In this circumstance, the trust beneficiaries would not receive the proceeds from the sale of this land. The level of foregone revenue is difficult to predict in advance.

[CA]


Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona Relating to the Protection of Marriage
Proposition 107
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.2%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



Pursuant to Arizona state statute, marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited. Arizona law does not recognize a marriage contracted in any other state or country that is between two persons of the same sex.



Proposition 107 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that in order to preserve and protect marriage:



1. Only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage by the State of Arizona or its cities, towns, counties or districts.



2. The State of Arizona and its cities, towns, counties or districts shall not create or recognize a legal status for unmarried persons that is similar to marriage.



FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT



State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal impact of certain ballot measures. Proposition 107 is not projected to have a state cost.

[CA]


Prosecution by Info. Preliminary Exam.
Unknown5
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.2%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Providing for a State Lottery
Proposition 200
Election:
General

1980

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.9%)
Topic Areas:
Gambling & Lotteries

Summary: Click for Summary
An initiative measure relating to amusements and sports; providing for a state lottery; providing for an Arizona State Lottery Commission and an executive director and prescribing powers and duties; providing for licensing of agents; providing for distribution of revenue; prohibiting certain conduct and prescribing penalties.

[S]


Providing for an Increase in the Present Salary of State Legislators from $15,000 per Annum to $19,750 per Annum as Recommended by the Commission on Salaries for State Elected Officials
Proposition 302
Election:
General

1994

Type:
Other

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 39.5%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
STATEMENT FROM THE COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTIVE STATE OFFICERS



Recommended Legislative Salary – $19,750



The Commission believes the current method of establishing legislative salaries is not working. Thus, we recommend a constitutional amendment changing the present system. We suggest that the language of the amendment be determined by the Legislature, after adequate public hearings, and be submitted to the voters in 1994.



In addition, each legislator should receive a minimum of $1,000 for communication with constituents.



The Commission also recommends that the Legislature consider the advisability of establishing the principle that state-wide elected officers who earn substantial salaries be prohibited from taking additional paid employment.



We have included a spread sheet which shows the recommendations of the Commission since 1971. This shows the amounts recommended by the Commission and the amounts actually implemented by the Legislature from 1971 through 1993.



We have appreciated our appointments and enjoyed serving this great state. Thank you very much.



David K. Udall, Chairman

Shoshana B. Tancer, Member

P. Robert Fannin, Member

Wayne Anderson, Member

Jim Klinker, Member


Public Debt & Taxation Revenue
Unknown1
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 33.0%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Public Debt, Revenue and Taxation
Proposition 104
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.9%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2010

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to public debt, revenue and taxation; prescribing purposes for which a city or town may incur additional, voter approved, debt.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Public Debt, Revenue and Taxation
Proposition 102
Election:
General

2004

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.1%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | State Government | Telecom & Info Technology

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2028

The Arizona Constitution prohibits the state government from becoming a shareholder or joint owner in a company or corporation.



Proposition 102 would amend the Constitution to add an additional exception allowing the state to license or transfer interests in technology or intellectual property created or acquired by state universities or the Board of Regents in exchange for ownership interests and securities in a company or corporation. The ownership interests must be obtained only for investment as authorized by law.


Public Debt, Revenue and Taxation
Unknown7
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.6%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Public Employee’s Merit System
Unknown4
Election:
General

1958

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 39.5%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Public Employees Retirement Fund
Unknown9
Election:
General

1948

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 69.5%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Local Government | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Public Employees’ Retirement Fund
Unknown2
Election:
General

1952

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.9%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Local Government | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Public Lands
Proposition 203
Election:
General

1982

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.9%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Relating to public lands; repealing state claim to control over certain public lands; repealing statement of public lands policy; removing public lands board of review; removing certain state payments to counties.

[S]


Public Lands, Sale & Disposal of
Unknown2
Election:
General

1927

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 73.7%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights | Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Public Program Eligibility
Proposition 300
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 71.4%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Education: Higher Ed | Human Services | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



Proposition 300 would make the following changes related to eligibility, enforcement and reporting for certain state funded services:



1. Provides that only United States citizens, legal residents or persons otherwise lawfully present in this country are eligible to participate in adult education classes offered by the Arizona Department of Education.



2. Provides that in accordance with the federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a person who is not a United States citizen or legal resident and who does not otherwise possess lawful immigration status in this country may not be classified as an in-state student or county resident for community college or state university tuition purposes.



3. Provides that a state university or community college student who is not a United States citizen and who does not otherwise possess lawful immigration status in this country is not entitled to waivers, grants or any other financial assistance paid in whole or part with state funds.



4. Restricts eligibility for child care assistance from the Arizona Department of Economic Security to parents, guardians and caretakers who are United States citizens, legal residents or persons otherwise lawfully present in this country.



5. Requires that the family literacy program, the adult education class requirements, the state university and community college financial assistance requirements and the child care assistance program be enforced without regard to race, religion, gender, ethnicity or national origin.



6. Requires that the state agencies administering the provisions of Proposition 300 report statistics regarding the number of persons denied participation in the above described programs due to citizenship or immigration status.

[S]


Public Retirement Systems for Public Safety Personnel Amendment
Proposition 124
Election:
Primary

2016

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 70.4% unofficial)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
The proposition and accompanying legislation permit the state to adjust certain benefits in the public safety personnel retirement system to alleviate system underfunding, including the replacement of the current permanent benefit increase structure with a cost of living adjustment that is indexed for inflation, capped at 2% per year.


Public Service Corporation
Unknown2
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 25.7%)
Topic Areas:
Energy & Electric Utilities

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Public Service Corporations
Proposition 104
Election:
General

1974

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 59.0%)
Topic Areas:
Energy & Electric Utilities

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2001

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to public service corporations; amending the definition of public service corporations to include certain private sewage disposal corporations.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Qualifications for Public Office
Unknown2
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.5%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Quality Education and Jobs Act
Proposition 204
Election:
General

2012

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 35.9% (Unofficial))
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
The temporary state sales tax rate of 6.6 percent enacted on May 28, 2010 expires on May 31, 2013, resulting in a decrease of the sales tax rate to 5.6 percent. Proposition 204 would permanently increase the state sales tax rate by one cent per dollar beginning June 1, 2013, to a rate of 6.6 percent. The proposition anticipates the tax increase to generate at least one billion dollars. The monies collected from the tax increase would be used for educational programs, public transportation infrastructure projects and human services programs as summarized below. Proposition 204 also would require the Legislature to annually increase specific components of the school finance formula. In addition, Proposition 204 would provide that the specified funding levels for the state’s kindergarten-through-twelfth-grade and state university systems cannot be reduced below the levels for fiscal year 2011-2012 or 2012-2013, whichever is greater, that limits on school district bonds and overrides cannot be below those in effect for 2012, that vehicle license tax and related highway user revenues cannot be diverted for any other purpose and that the sales tax base applicable to the proposed one cent sales tax increase cannot be adjusted in a way that causes the amount of sales tax collected to be less than the amount collected in the prior year, plus six per cent, unless there is a corresponding change in the tax base that results in no reduction in the amount of sales tax collected. The Legislature would not have the ability to adjust the new tax increase disbursements under any circumstances.



Proposition 204 would annually distribute the first one billion dollars of additional sales tax as follows, or, if one billion dollars is not collected, the money would be proportionally distributed as follows:



1. Five hundred million dollars into the “quality education and performance fund”, to be used to assist school districts and charter schools to comply with assessment and accountability requirements, including improvement plans for failing schools, to provide teacher and principal evaluation systems based in part on student achievement, to improve pupil reading proficiency by the end of third grade and to implement a system of testing and awarding Grand Canyon diplomas to high school students who demonstrate readiness for college level math and English.



2. Ten million dollars into the “education learning and accountability fund”, to be used by the state Department of Education to maintain a system for compiling longitudinal student level data and school finance data to meet state and federal reporting requirements.



3. Ninety million dollars into the “education accountability and improvement fund” to provide performance funding to school districts and charter schools based on performance measures to be adopted by the State Board of Education relating to academic progress, parental satisfaction and student engagement, to provide teacher training and for technology necessary to implement statewide academic standards and assessments. Monies in this fund that remain unspent for three consecutive years would be transferred to the School Facilities Board, first to pay down existing school construction debt and then to fund construction or repair of school buildings.



4. One hundred million dollars into the “state infrastructure fund”, to be used by the state Department of Transportation for costs associated with a variety of transportation infrastructure projects, the acceleration of highway improvement projects, for public-private partnerships relating to transportation projects, to fund environmentally sensitive designs and to fund transportation-related wildlife improvement projects and pay for bonding and other finance costs related to transportation projects.



5. Twenty-five million dollars into the “children’s health insurance program fund”, to be used for costs associated with the current publicly funded health care program for children under nineteen years of age whose household income is at or below two hundred per cent of the federal poverty level.



6. One hundred million dollars into the “family stability and self-sufficiency fund”, to be distributed by the Governor’s office to state agencies and private nonprofit entities as a match for federal funds for programs that provide for the basic needs of children, families and vulnerable adults whose household income is below two hundred per cent of the federal poverty level.



7. Fifty million dollars into the “university scholarship, operations and infrastructure fund”, to be distributed according to rules adopted by the Board of Regents. Between fifty and sixty per cent of the fund monies must be used to provide university scholarships to resident students based on financial need or academic achievement, and the remaining fund monies would be allocated to the three state universities for operating and infrastructure expenses based on performance in meeting goals set by the Board of Regents.



8. Up to one hundred twenty-five million dollars to the state general fund to fund the required inflationary adjustment for the kindergarten-through-twelfth-grade school system.



Proposition 204 would annually distribute the amount of additional sales tax over one billion dollars as follows:



1. Thirty-three per cent to school districts and charter schools, based on the proportion of students participating in the federal free or reduced lunch program, to improve student achievement for those participating students and to provide voluntary preschool programs.



2. Twenty-two and one-half per cent to community college districts, provisional community college districts and Indian tribal postsecondary institutions to support scholarship and career and technical training programs.



3. Nine per cent to joint technical education districts to support career and vocational training.



4. Two per cent to the state Department of Education to fund adult education programs.



5. Twenty-two and one-half per cent to the “university scholarship, operations and infrastructure fund”.



6. Eleven per cent to the “state infrastructure fund”.



Proposition 204 would also require that an independent third-party audit of fund distributions be conducted every five years for all distributions, except there is no state audit required for the children’s health insurance program fund, the family stability and self-sufficiency fund, the state general fund and to Indian tribal postsecondary educational institutions.


Racing, Regulation of Horses
Unknown4
Election:
General

1924

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 25.4%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Gambling & Lotteries

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Railroads
Proposition 101
Election:
General

1980

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 68.0%)
Topic Areas:
Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1015

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to public service corporations and railroads; declaring all railroads to be common carriers and subject to control by law.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Real Estate Brokers: Preparation of Legal Papers
Unknown4
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 78.6%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Recall
Proposition 100
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 81.5%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary


Recall
Proposition 101
Election:
General

1974

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.7%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1022

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to recall; providing that a recall election be held as provided by law.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Reclamation, Irrigation of Arable and Irrigable Lands
Unknown10
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44.8%)
Topic Areas:
Agriculture | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Recommendation by the Commission on Salaries for Elected State Officers
Proposition 300
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Other

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 32.6%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Increase the salaries of legislators


Recommendation by the Commission on Salaries for Elected State Officers to Increase the Salaries of Legislators
Proposition 300
Election:
General

1996

Type:
Other

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.6%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Statement from the Commission on Salaries for Elected State Officers



The Commission took seriously its responsibility of determining an appropriate salary for the members of the Arizona State Senate and the Arizona House of Representatives. The Commission worked to establish a level of compensation which will enable Arizonans from diverse backgrounds to serve as members of the Arizona citizen legislature. At the same time, the Commission worked to establish a level of compensation that was consistent with legislative service in other states. The Commission also thoroughly examined the increase in the cost of living in Arizona, using a number of different indices to identify the amount necessary to hold the compensation effectively equal to what it was the last time the legislative salary was raised.



After all of this review, and many hours of testimony and deliberation, the Commission selected the figure of $24,000. It is important to note that the legislative salary has been the same since 1980. We believe that it is unfair and unreasonable to expect individuals to serve in the time-consuming role of legislator without receiving at least reasonable minimal compensation. We urge the electorate of Arizona to support the first change since 1980 in compensation for members of the House of Representatives and Arizona State Senate.



Donald G. Isaacson, Chairman

Jim Klinker Msgr. Edward J. Ryle

Chuck Shipley Charles W. Wirken


Recommendation by the Commission on Salaries for Elected State Officers to Increase the Salaries of Legislators
Proposition 301
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Other

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.9%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Statement from the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers



The Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers recommends that the salary for state legislators should be increased to $19,748 for the 1993-1994 term of office. Thisincrease would reflect one-half of the change in the consumer price index based on the average of the annual percentage changes in the consumer price index for both years of the 1981-1982 term, when the present salary of $15,000 per year became effective and calculated in the same manner cumulatively for each subsequent term of office through the 1989-1990 term, including the average of the estimated annual percentage changes in the consumer price index for 1991 and 1992. For the next two terms of office beginning with 1995-1996 and ending with 1997-1998 the salary for state legislators should be changed by the percentage equal to the average of the annual percentage changes in the consumer price index for the two most recent calendar years for which the consumer price index has been published before the beginning of the term of office. The salary for the 1997-1998 term should then continue for future terms until a change is approved by a vote of the people. The consumer price index is the index for all urban consumers (all items; U.S. city average) as published by the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.



Marilyn Evans, Chairman

P. Robert Fannin, Member

John Mangum, Member

Suzan Beer O’Neill, Member

Allan Stanton, Member


Recommendation by the Commission Salaries for Elective State Officers Relating to Salaries for State Legislators
Proposition 302
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Other

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.4%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Would provide for an increase from the present salary of state legislators from $15,000 per annum to $24,000 per annum with per diem reimbursement as recommended by the Commission on Salaries for Elected State Officers.


Recommendation of the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers
Proposition 300
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Other

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 36.1%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Referred to the ballot by the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers. The Commission recommends that legislators’ salaries be raised from $24,000 per year to $30,000 per year.


Referendum Relating to Appropriation of Funds for Open Space Land
Proposition 303
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 52.9%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Environmental Protection | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
Would provide $20 million of state general revenue each year for eleven years to purchase or lease State Trust land and to preserve land from development as open space; provide that the state cannot mandate local governments to adopt certain growth management ordinances, boundaries or other restrictions.


Referendum Relating to Probation Eligibility for Drug Possession or Use
Proposition 301
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.4%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy

Summary: Click for Summary
Referendum of an act which provides that for 1st or 2nd convictions for possession/use of marijuana, dangerous or narcotic drugs, a person shall be probation eligible unless previously convicted of 2 or more felonies, a violent or dangerous offense; shall receive probation if the person has one drug possession/use conviction or no prior felonies.



A “yes” vote shall have the effect of providing that a person convicted of a 1st or 2nd offense of possession or use of marijuana or dangerous or narcotic drugs shall be eligible for probation unless previously convicted of 2 or more prior felonies or of a violent or dangerous offense, and the person shall be placed on probation if the person has 1 drug possession or use conviction or no prior felonies.



A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the requirement that a person convicted of a 1st or 2nd offense of possession or use of marijuana or dangerous or narcotic drugs shall be placed on probation unless the person was previously convicted of a violent offense.


Referendum Relating to the Medical Use of Schedule I Drugs
Proposition 300
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.7%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Federal Government | Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Referendum of an act which requires authorization by the Federal Food and Drug Administration or the United States Congress for the medical use of marijuana before doctors may lawfully prescribe Schedule I drugs, including heroin, LSD, marijuana and analogs of PCP, to seriously ill or terminally ill patients in Arizona.



A “yes” vote shall have the effect of requiring authorization from the Federal Food and Drug Administration or the United States Congress for the medical use of marijuana before it will be lawful for doctors to prescribe Schedule I drugs, including heroin, LSD, marijuana and analogs of PCP, to seriously or terminally ill patients in Arizona.



A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the provisions of state law allowing doctors to prescribe Schedule I drugs, including heroin, LSD, marijuana and analogs of PCP, to seriously or terminally ill patients without the authorization of the Federal Food and Drug Administration or the United States Congress.


Referendum Relating to the State Lottery Termination Date
Proposition 304
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 66.8%)
Topic Areas:
Gambling & Lotteries

Summary: Click for Summary
Would provide for an extension of the termination date of the Arizona State Lottery from the current termination date of July 1, 1999, until July 1, 2003.


Regarding Adjustments to the Base Spending Limit of a City, Town or County
Proposition 104
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.9%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
The State Constitution places limits on the amount of “local revenues” a city, town or county may spend each year. The actual amount the city, town or county is allowed to spend is determined by a formula using a base spending limit as a starting point.



If the city, town or county government feels that the expenditure limitation (spending limit) imposed by the State Constitution is too restrictive, it may ask its voters for a “permanent adjustment” (usually an increase) in the base spending limit.



Proposition 104 makes one change in the election process for approving a permanent adjustment to the base spending limit. Currently a permanent adjustment proposal may be submitted to the voters only at elections for nominating or electing the city, town or county officers. These elections take place every four years for counties and some cities and towns. Proposition 104 would allow permanent adjustments to the base limit to also be submitted to the voters at general elections, which take place every two years in addition to nonpartisan elections to nominate or elect officers.



The effect of Proposition 104 is, therefore, to allow cities, towns and counties more frequent opportunities to obtain voter approval for permanent adjustments to their base spending limits.


Regarding the Selection of Appointed Judges
Proposition 109
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.8%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 109 would amend the Constitution of Arizona to provide greater public participation and opportunity in the process for appointing and evaluating supreme court justices, court of appeals judges, and superior court judges in Maricopa and Pima Counties. Nothing in the proposed amendment will ch ange the system for the election of judges in the remaining thirteen counties.



The proposed amendment would require that public hearings be held, public testimony taken, and public votes be made before any judicial selection commission could nominate to the governor a candidate for appointment to the supreme court, court of appeals, or superior court in Maricopa or Pina counties.



The amendment also proposes to increase the membership of the judicial appointment commissions by, among other things, doubling the number of public, non-lawyer members. It also provides that an expanded public process, through the use of citizen committees, will be used to recommend to the governor members for the judicial appointment commissions.



The proposed amendment requires that all judicial apointments be made in an impartial and objective manner with primary consideration given to merit. It further provides that the diversity of the state’s or county’s population be considered in making court appointments. All current judges and commission members are continued in office.



Finally, the proposed amendment establishes a judicial evaluation system that will be adopted only after public hearings. The new evaluation process will require that the public be afforded a full and fair opportunity to participate and that the public evaluation be disseminated to each voter.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Regents of the Universities
Proposition 103
Election:
General

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.2%)
Topic Areas:
Education: Higher Ed | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1009 – Ordered placed on the ballot as five separate questions by the attorney general in responses to a question propounded by the governor.

Imposes an additional requirement that the governor’s appointments of regents of the universities and the governing boards of other state educational institutions be subject to the consent of the senate as prescribed by legislation.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act
Proposition 205
Election:
General

2016

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.9% unofficial)
Topic Areas:
Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
The Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act: (1) establishes a 15% tax on retail marijuana sales, from which the revenue will be allocated to public health and education; (2) allows adults twenty-one years of age and older to possess and to privately consume and grow limited amounts of marijuana; (3) creates a system in which licensed businesses can produce and sell marijuana; (4) establishes a Department of Marijuana Licenses and Control to regulate the cultivation, manufacturing, testing, transportation, and sale of marijuana; and (5) provides local governments with the authority to regulate and limit marijuana businesses.


Regulation of Ambulances and Ambulance Services
Proposition 100
Election:
General

1982

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.9%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2024

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Arizona Constitution relating to the public health, safety and welfare; providing that the legislature may provide for the regulation of ambulances and ambulances services with respect to certain matters.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Regulation of Health Care Institutions
Proposition 110
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.5%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposed amendment to the constitution by initiative providing for regulation of health care institutions.

[CA]


Relating to Bailable Offenses
Unknown1
Election:
General

1970

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 84.7%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Relating to Cruel and Inhumane Confinement of Animals
Proposition 204
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.0%)
Topic Areas:
Agriculture | Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



Beginning January 1, 2013, Proposition 204 would amend the Arizona criminal code to make it a class 1 misdemeanor to tether or confine a pig during pregnancy or a calf raised for veal on a farm for all or the majority of a day in a manner that prevents the animal from lying down and fully extending its limbs or turning around freely. The law would not apply to:



1. Pigs or calves during transportation.



2. Pigs or calves in rodeo exhibitions, state or county fair exhibitions or other similar exhibitions.



3. The lawful slaughter of pigs or calves.



4. Pigs or calves involved in lawful scientific or agricultural research.



5. Pigs or calves while undergoing an examination, test, treatment or operation for veterinary purposes.



6. A pig during the seven day period before the pig’s expected date of giving birth.



Proposition 204 would tentatively establish an enforcement and administration fund consisting of fines, penalties and other monies generated by the enforcement of this proposition and donations made to the fund. This fund would only be fully implemented if a court ultimately determined that creation of this fund is required by a separate state law dealing with the funding of programs created by a vote of the people.



FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT



State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal impact of certain ballot measures. State and local governments may receive additional revenues in the form of fines and penalty assessments from violators of provisions of Proposition 204. The language of the proposition states that the measure does not impose mandatory expenditure of state revenues for any purpose. If, however, a court rules that the proposition results in mandatory expenditure of state revenue, a Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Fund is established and funded through enforcement related revenue and donations. The total amount of fines will depend on the level of compliance, which is difficult to predict in advance.

[S]


Relating to Initiative Measures and Requiring that Any Mandatory Tax or Spending Increase Be Enacted by a Majority of Qualified Electors
Proposition 105
Election:
General

2008

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.0%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 105 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that an initiative measure that establishes, imposes or raises a tax, a fee or other revenue or mandates a spending obligation on a private person, a labor organization, other private legal entity or this state shall not become law unless the initiative measure is approved at the election by a majority of qualified electors registered to vote in the state.


Relating to Laws on Controlled Substances and those Convicted of Personal Use or Possession of Controlled Substances
Proposition 200
Election:
General

1996

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.4%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Criminal Justice | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 200 would require that certain persons who are convicted of drug offenses be sentenced as follows:



1. Require that persons who commit violent crimes while under the influence of drugs serve 100% of their sentences, without eligibility for parole.



2. Require that persons who have been convicted before the proposition passes of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance such as marijuana and who are serving their sentence in prison be released on parole. A person is released on parole after serving time in jail or prison, is under the supervision of a parole officer and may have his parole revoked if any condition of parole is violated. The State Department of Corrections would be required to establish a procedure for paroling these persons. The Board of Executive Clemency would be required to release these persons unless the Board determines that a person would be a danger to the general public. Persons who are released on parole would be required to participate in drug treatment or education.



3. Require that persons who are convicted after the proposition passes of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance such as marijuana be eligible for probation. A person who is sentenced to probation does not serve any time in jail or prison, is under the supervision of a probation officer and remains free as long as the person continues his good behavior. A person on probation would be required to participate in a drug treatment or education program.



Proposition 200 would allow medical doctors to prescribe a controlled substance such as marijuana to treat a disease or to relieve the pain and suffering of a seriously or terminally ill patient. The doctor must be able to document that scientific research supports the use of the controlled substance and must obtain a written opinion from a second doctor that prescribing the controlled substance is appropriate. A patient who receives, possesses or uses a controlled substance as prescribed by a doctor would not be subject to criminal penalties.



Proposition 200 would establish the Drug Treatment and Education Fund. These monies would come from a percentage of the luxury tax on alcohol, cigarettes and other tobacco products. 50% of these monies would be transferred to Superior Court probation departments to cover the costs of placing persons in drug education and treatment programs. The remaining 50% of the monies would be transferred to the Arizona Parents Commission on Drug Education and Prevention.



Proposition 200 would establish an Arizona Parents Commission on Drug Education and Prevention. The Commission would be responsible for funding programs that increase and enhance parental involvement in drug education and treatment.

[S]


Relating to Local Growth Management Plans
Proposition 202
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 29.8%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
(Summary from Arizona Legislative Council)

Proposition 202 would change existing growth management statutes to add additional requirements including that all counties and cities and towns having populations of 2,500 or more would have to adopt “growth management plans” in addition to the plans already required under existing law that include specified environmental and growth regulations. A required element of each growth management ordinance is the drawing of “urban growth boundaries” within the incorporated boundaries of the county or municipality. The boundaries could be no larger than necessary to allow ten years worth of population growth, based on state agency (Department of Economic Security) population projections. Outside the urban growth boundaries, development of homes or businesses requiring rezoning of property to a higher density and extension of water, sewer and other public services to landowners would be prohibited except where it could be shown that “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” warrant an exception and the exception is approved by a four-fifths supermajority vote of the governing body, and if the exception is more than 20 acres, the exception is approved by the voters at an election. The boundaries may not be expanded unless the state agency population projections allow for it and the change is approved by the voters. The growth management plans must also ensure compliance with federal and state air and water quality standards and not unreasonably burden the supplies of surface and groundwater.



The additional growth management plans must be adopted in each county, city and town by January 1, 2003 after public hearings and approval by the local voters. Until January 1, 2003 or the date on which the plan is adopted, counties and municipalities are prohibited from approving new commercial or residential subdivisions or rezoning of land to a higher density use without a four-fifths supermajority vote of the members of the governing body. The local voters could use the initiative process to adopt or amend a growth management plan.



Proposition 202 changes existing law to permit any person, regardless of residency in the community, to file a lawsuit against any other person, including any local community, public official, public employee or private party alleging violation of Proposition 202 and seeking injunctive or other relief.



Proposition 202 would change existing planning and zoning law in other respects:



– Existing law allows counties and municipalities to assess development fees for the cost of public services required by that development including water, sewer, streets, public safety, parks and public administration facilities. Proposition 202 would require counties and municipalities to assess additional fees for the full cost of all provided public facilities including, but not limited to, mountain preserves and mass transit.



– A number of existing county and municipal planning and zoning procedures would be repealed, including elements of municipal general plans and county comprehensive plans, as well as the standards for imposing a development moratorium.



– Each general plan and comprehensive plan (the existing growth management plans) would have to conform to the additional growth management plan required by Proposition 202, and adoption of each general plan or comprehensive plan or major amendment would require a three-fourths supermajority vote of the governing body.



– Proposition 202 also proposes numerous changes to existing county and municipal planning and zoning procedures to increase public control over how land is used and developed. Counties would be given authority to regulate “wildcat subdivisions” outside of cities and towns, including lot splits (into two or three parcels) and subdivisions (into four or more parcels). State land held in trust for funding public schools and other public institutions in the State of Arizona would also have to comply with county and municipal land use plans and growth management plans, and priority would be given in state land use plans for maintaining state lands in a “natural” state, without development or alteration by humans or livestock, to the maximum extent allowed by the state constitution and Enabling Act.



There is an existing program for preserving undeveloped land owned by the State of Arizona, and $20 million in state grants per year is available for that purpose. Each grant of state money must be matched by private donations. Proposition 202 would use that money to preserve other qualifying public and private “natural areas”, in addition to state land, and eliminates the requirement that applicants provide matching money. Organizations participating in the program would have to have the primary purpose and sole and exclusive motivation of conserving the natural environment or preserving natural open space. This measure removes the requirement that lands that are purchased or leased through this program be open to public access except to protect and preserve natural ecosystems or other rare and unique features. This measure eliminates monies available under this program for conservation based livestock or agriculture management, and current provisions under the program for existing leases on state trust land sold or leased for conservation.



This measure eliminates the requirement that landowners consent to rezoning of their land when such rezoning restricts their use or reduces the value.



This measure eliminates the prohibition against government entities denying reasonable access to private property.



Fiscal Impact Summary:

Proposition 202 would require cities and counties with populations over 2,500 persons to develop growth management plans by January 1, 2003. The fiscal impact of this Proposition will depend on how these growth management plans are implemented. The precise form of these growth management plans will not be known for several years. As a result, it is not possible to predict the Proposition’s precise impact on the state economy at this time.



If the creation of the growth management plans results in less development in the long-term, the Proposition would probably negatively affect the state’s economy and state and local government revenues. Slower development would cause declines in the construction industry. This could lead to lost state and local revenue from taxes on the construction industry. This same negative impact could also occur in the short-term if the approval of the initiative delays the start of new development projects.



If the Proposition channels development into specific geographic areas without slowing growth, the fiscal impact is more difficult to predict. The more limited geographic opportunities for development would probably increase land prices. Higher land prices could increase property tax collections, but could also lead to a reduced demand for development.



The growth management plans could generate local government savings as developers would be required to pay the full cost of infrastructure development, such as streets and sewers. If developers are not currently paying these full costs, this provision would increase local revenues. The developers, however, could pass these additional costs along to consumers or businesses in the form of higher prices.



In addition, local governments could realize efficiency gains if construction is directed inward where services such as police & fire protection are already provided.

[S]


Relating to Motor Vehicle Registration
Unknown8
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.4%)
Topic Areas:
Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Relating to Sales Tax for Education
Proposition 301
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.5%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed | Education: PreK-12 | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Referred by the Legislature

(Summary by Arizona Legislative Council) Proposition 301 provides for:



1. An increase of six-tenths of one per cent in the rate of state transaction privilege (sales) tax, and an increase of six-tenths of one per cent in the state use tax for twenty years. An increase of six-tenths of one per cent changes the state’s current rate from 5.0% to 5.6%. This equates to an increase of 12% to the state’s rate. If Proposition 301 passes, state general fund expenditures would be an additional $94.5 million in 2002, increasing annually thereafter. These additional expenditures would not be paid for from the increase in the sales tax. The uses of the new revenue are for the following purposes:



(a) To authorize and pay for issuance of up to $800 million of new school improvement revenue bonds to correct existing deficiencies in school buildings. At 6% interest total principal and debt service will be approximately $1.4 billion over the next 20 years.

(b) For universities to invest in technology and research-based initiatives.

(c) For community college districts to invest in workforce development programs.

(d) For community colleges that are owned, operated or chartered by an Indian tribe for workforce development and job training.

(e) For distribution to the state department of education for the phase-in of five additional school days and associated teacher salary increases resulting from an increased number of school days.

(f) For distribution to the state department of education for school safety and character education.

(g) For distribution to the state department of education for:

(1) Developing a system to measure school performance based on student achievement, including student performance on the AIMS test.

(2) Developing a statewide computerized database of information on individual students including student attendance and academic performance. Data items collected on individual students will be developed at the discretion of the Department of Education.

(h) For distribution to the failing schools tutoring fund.
(i) For reimbursement of the state general fund for the cost of income tax credits in mitigation of increased transaction privilege and use taxes for families with an annual income of less then $25,000 and individuals with an annual income of less than $12,500.

(j) For increases in teacher base level compensation, teacher compensation based on performance, and maintenance and operation purposes.



2. Automatic inflation adjustments in the state aid to education base level or other components of a school district’s revenue control limit.



3. The inclusion of school district excess utility costs within the revenue control limit, beginning in fiscal year 2009-2010.



4. A limitation on the school district qualifying tax rates and the county equalization assistance for education tax rate.


Relating to Smoking
Proposition 206
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.7%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Health | Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



Currently, state statutes provide that smoking tobacco is prohibited in certain areas and most state buildings. A person who smokes where smoking is prohibited is guilty of a petty offense. Several cities and towns also have restrictions on smoking in public places.



Proposition 206 would prohibit smoking in all public places and places of employment, except as provided by the proposition. These exceptions include:



1. Bars, including parts of restaurants, hotels and other establishments that sell alcoholic beverages and are physically separated with a separate ventilation system.



2. Retail tobacco stores that are physically separated and independently ventilated.



3. Veterans and fraternal clubs when they are not open to the public.



4. Hotel rooms designated as smoking rooms.



5. Outdoor patios.



Proposition 206 would prohibit a minor from entering a bar that permits smoking.



Proposition 206 also would prescribe notice and other requirements for operating establishments to implement the smoking restrictions. In addition, an employer could not retaliate against an employee for exercising any rights provided by the proposition.



A bar owner who violated the proposition would be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. Any other violation would be a petty offense.



Proposition 206 would preempt all city, town and county laws relating to smoking in bars and retail tobacco stores.



FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT



State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal impact of certain ballot measures. State and local governments may receive additional revenues in the form of fines and penalty assessments from violators of the provisions of Proposition 206. The total amount of fines and assessments will depend on the level of compliance, which is difficult to predict in advance.

[S]


Relating to the Courts, Commission on Judicial Qualifications
Unknown4
Election:
General

1970

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 73.6%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Relating to Use of Tobacco Litigation Monies for Certain Healthcare Programs
Proposition 204
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.9%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Health | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
(Summary by Arizona Legislative Council)

In 1998, the attorneys general of 46 states, including Arizona, agreed to settle a lawsuit they had filed against the manufacturers of tobacco products. As a result, the tobacco manufacturers must pay each of those states a portion of the estimated $206 billion settlement each year over the next 25 years.



Arizona’s share is estimated to total approximately $3.2 billion. Payments are subject to annual adjustments for inflation. The settlement also includes a provision to reduce payments if the volume of cigarettes sold in the United States falls. The settlement agreement allows each state to determine how it will spend its share of the settlement.



Proposition 204 would require Arizona to deposit all of the money it receives over the next 25 years from the tobacco litigation settlement in the “Arizona Tobacco Litigation settlement fund.” Money in the fund would be used to increase the number of people who are eligible for coverage in the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), which is the state’s health care system for the poor. Currently, there are many eligibility categories that determine if a person can receive health care under AHCCCS, including one that requires that a recipient’s net income not exceed approximately 34% of the federal poverty level. If Proposition 204 passes, people who earn up to 100% of the federal poverty level will qualify to receive health care under AHCCCS. Future legislatures could change the eligibility requirements to allow more people to qualify to receive health care under AHCCCS but the Legislature and the AHCCCS administration could not reduce or limit the number of persons who would be able to enroll in AHCCCS.



Any excess monies in the Arizona tobacco litigation settlement fund would also be used to ensure that programs that were previously established by the passage of a proposition in the 1996 general election would be fully implemented at funding levels that, when adjusted each year for inflation, would be at least equal to those provided for in that election as follows:



1. Five million dollars for the Healthy Families program, which provides services to prevent child abuse and neglect and to promote child wellness and proper development.



2. Four million dollars for the Arizona Health Education System to provide scholarships to medical students who agree to practice in areas of the state that are currently underserved by health care professionals.



3. Three million dollars for programs to prevent teenage pregnancy.



4. Two million dollars for disease control research.



5. Two million dollars for Health Start, a program that aims to reduce the incidence of low birth weight babies and childhood diseases and to educate families on the importance of good nutrition and preventive health care for their children.



6. One million dollars for the Women, Infants and Children Food program.



Under the 1996 proposition, all of these programs have had to rely on distributions from lottery revenues. However, this has proven to be an insufficient source of funding for these programs.



Fiscal Impact Summary:

Proposition 204 allocates monies received from tobacco companies as part of a lawsuit settlement. The state is expected to receive between $92 million and $109 million annually through 2006. By 2025, the state is expected to have received $3.2 billion in total tobacco settlement revenues. Proposition 204 would use these monies to expand eligibility for the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), which is the state’s health care system for the poor.



A second ballot proposition, Healthy Children, Healthy Families (Proposition 200), also fully spends the tobacco settlement. If both initiatives pass, and Healthy Children, Healthy Families receives more votes than this initiative, this initiative would still go into effect. However, the entire projected state cost of the program would need to be paid from its general or other revenues.

[S]


Relating to Use of Tobacco Litigation Monies for Certain Healthcare Programs
Proposition 200
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.1%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Health | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
(Summary from Arizona Legislative Council)

In 1998, the attorneys general of 46 states, including Arizona, agreed to settle a lawsuit they had filed against the manufacturers of tobacco products. As a result, the tobacco manufacturers must pay each of those states a portion of the estimated $206 billion settlement each year over the next 25 years. Arizona’s share is estimated to total approximately $3.2 billion. The payments are subject to annual adjustments for inflation. The settlement includes a provision to reduce payments if the volume of cigarettes sold in the United States falls. The settlement agreement allows each state to determine how it will spend its share of the settlement.



Proposition 200 would require Arizona to deposit all of the money it receives over the next 25 years from the settlement agreement in a “Healthy Children, Healthy Families Fund”. Proposition 200 will prohibit Arizona’s counties from suing the tobacco companies to recover tax monies expended by the counties for indigent health care expenses from tobacco-related illnesses. It would also require the counties to turn over to the Healthy Children Healthy Families Fund any sums they recovered from tobacco settlement monies. The fund would also include 70% of the money that is collected by current Arizona tobacco tax revenues. In so doing, Proposition 200 will divert existing tax revenues generated from the tobacco tax without an offsetting reduction in mandated programs previously funded by such taxes. The proposition would also require an annual general fund appropriation of $28 million to fund four programs currently funded by current Arizona tobacco tax revenues. This may result in a need for additional taxes or other revenue sources. All of this money would be distributed as follows:



1. Twenty-one percent in the “Smart Beginnings Prevention Account”, which could not exceed $35 million in any one fiscal year. The proposition would establish an appointed “Smart Beginnings Commission” to administer the account. The commission would use account money to fund and provide program administration for family support services.



2. Three and one-half percent in the “Invest in Prevention Account”, which could not exceed $5 million in any one fiscal year. The Department of Health Services would administer the account and would use money in the account only for the prevention and early detection of cancer, cardiovascular and pulmonary disease and strokes.



3. Three hundred fifty thousand dollars each fiscal year in the “Oversight and Enforcement Account”, which the Attorney General would use to enforce the master settlement agreement and this proposition.



4. Three hundred fifty thousand dollars each fiscal year in the “Auditor General Account”, which the Auditor General would use to conduct annual financial audits of the use of money distributed from the Healthy Children, Healthy Families Fund.



Any money that remained in the Healthy Children, Healthy Families Fund would be transferred to the “Health Care Coverage Account” for distribution as follows:



1. Thirty-four percent in each of the first two fiscal years and 50% thereafter in the “Children’s Health Insurance and Working Uninsured Subaccount.” The state treasurer would also deposit in this subaccount any money that remains in the Health Care Coverage Account at the end of each fiscal year after all required distributions are made. The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration (AHCCCS) would use subaccount money to ensure that the maximum number of eligible children are served in the Children’s Health Insurance Program, to pay for certain organ transplants, to provide HIV/AIDS medication and for outreach programs. The proposition amends the AHCCCS statutes to provide for expanded coverage and the AHCCCS administrator could use monies in the subaccount to cover these additional administrative and program costs.



2. Fifteen percent in the “Annual Health Subaccount”, which could not exceed $20.5 million in any one fiscal year. The Legislature could appropriate money in this subaccount to fund health care, including behavioral health care for persons who could not otherwise afford or obtain services. The Legislature could also appropriate money in the fund for “innovative health care programs.”



3. Nine percent in the “Primary Care and Community Health Centers Subaccount”, which could not exceed $11million in any one fiscal year. The Legislature could appropriate money in this subaccount to fund primary care and community health center services.



4. Nine percent in the “Behavioral Health Subaccount”, which could not exceed $11 million in any one fiscal year. The Department of Health Services would administer this subaccount and would use 75% of the money in the subaccount to provide prescription medications to persons with a serious mental illness. The Department would use the remaining money to provide crisis stabilization and residential treatment services to children who have serious psychiatric impairments.



5. Three percent in the “Older Arizonans Subaccount”, which could not exceed $3.5 million in any one fiscal year. AHCCCS would use 85% of this money to provide care to older persons who are suffering from chronic diseases and whose social security coverage is otherwise insufficient. The Department of Economic Security would use the remaining 15% to fund nonmedical home and community-based care programs for the elderly.



6. A total of $75 million in the “Mental Health Facilities and Services Subaccount”. The state would use this money to construct and renovate mental health facilities and to provide mental health services. Any money that remained in this subaccount at the end of four fiscal years would be returned to the Healthy Children, Healthy Families Fund.



7. A total of $30 million in the “State Medical Laboratory Subaccount.” The state would use this money to build a state medical laboratory. Any money that remained in this subaccount at the end of three fiscal years would be returned to the Healthy Children, Healthy Families Fund.



8. An amount sufficient to ensure that the “Health Crisis Fund” would maintain a balance of $1million. This fund was enacted into law by the Legislature in 1997 to deal with any potential health crisis and consists of money raised from Arizona’s tax on tobacco products.



This proposition would also:



1. Repeal and reenact, word-for-word, the statute that established the current tobacco taxes. By doing this future legislatures would be prevented by the Arizona Constitution from making any substantial changes to the taxes that are collected from tobacco products in this state.



2. Amend Arizona’s current Children’s Health Insurance Program (Kidscare) to ensure that benefits under that program are identical to the health benefits Arizona now provides to AHCCCS children. Under current law, children are provided the state employee health benefits package. This would increase vision coverage, behavioral health care and nonemergency transportation services to Kidscare enrollees.



3. Require the Legislature to fund four existing AHCCCS programs totalling approximately $28 million annually from the state general fund. Three of these existing programs provides for hospital reimbursement.



4. Prohibit this state from reducing the level of AHCCCS services that it has provided since November 1, 1999 to certain AHCCCS enrollees until at least July 1, 2003.



5. Exempt the newly-created Smart Beginnings Commission from competitive bidding and other legal restrictions under the Arizona Procurement Code.



6. Create the Smart Beginnings Commission, as appointed by the Governor, without requiring confirmation by the Senate and with the members serving at the pleasure of the Governor alone.



Section 24 of the proposition incorporates the tobacco product manufacturers escrow accounts model statute. The settlement agreement with the tobacco manufacturers requires each participating state to enact this model legislation to prevent any tobacco manufacturer that did not participate in the settlement agreement from thereby obtaining an unfair pricing advantage over its competitors. After the filing of this proposition, the model statute was enacted into law.



Proposition 200 includes a provision that attempts to prevent other statutes, initiatives or referendums from using tobacco litigation settlement money in any way that conflicts with this proposition.



Fiscal Impact Summary:

Proposition 200 allocates revenues received by the state from the tax on tobacco products and the monies received from tobacco companies as part of a lawsuit settlement to various health care and family support programs. As part of the tobacco company settlement, the state is expected to receive between $92 million and $109 million annually through 2006. By 2025, the state is expected to have received $3.2 billion in total tobacco settlement revenues. In addition, the Proposition reallocates $108.1 million of existing revenues received from the state tobacco tax in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002. When tobacco tax and tobacco settlement revenues are combined, it results in approximately $200 million to $216 million per year in funding for health care and family support programs starting in 2002.



In addition to allocating the tobacco tax and tobacco settlement revenues, Proposition 200 specifies that certain health care expenses currently funded by tobacco tax revenue are to be funded by the state’s general revenue source. Therefore, Proposition 200 will result in an annual cost to the state of $28.0 million from its general revenues starting in 2002. Proposition 200 also requires that another state funding source be identified for a previous appropriation of $8 million made from tobacco settlement monies.

[S]


Repeal of School Voucher Expansion Popular Referendum
Proposition 305
Election:
General

2018

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.9%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
A “yes” vote would uphold SB 1431, which will allow up to 30,000 students of any background by 2022 to be given public tax dollars to be used for private-school tuition. The expansion of the Empowerment Scholarship Account program was supposed to take effect in August of 2017, but will now be on hold because of this measure. A “no” vote repeals SB 1431.


Repeal Term Limits for State Treasurer
Proposition 100
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.4%)
Topic Areas:
State Government | Term Limits

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1006

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to the executive department; repealing the limitation on the number of terms of the state treasurer, and repealing Article V, Section 10, Constitution of Arizona.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Repeal the Run-Off Election Provision
Proposition 100
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.1%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
The State Constitution currently provides that a candidate for a state executive department office must receive a majority of the votes cast for that office in order to be elected at the general election. Executive department offices are the Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Treasurer and Superintendent of Public Instruction. If three or more candidates are running and no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes cast in the general election, current law requires a runoff election between the two candidates who received the highest and second highest number of votes. If Proposition 100 is adopted, the person who receives the highest number of votes is elected and runoff elections will no longer be needed.



The current constitutional requirement was adopted in the 1988 general election and was first used in the 1990 gubernatorial election. If Proposition 100 is adopted, Arizona’s Constitution will be returned to the system used before the 1988 general election.


Require that the Death Penalty be Administered by Lethal Injections
Proposition 103
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 76.8%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 103 would amend the Constitution of Arizona to require that prisoners condemned to death be executed by lethal injection insttead of by cyanide gas. Those prisoners condemned to death for offenses committed before this amendment passes would be given the choice of execution by leghal injection or by cyanide gas.


Requiring a Two-Thirds Vote for Legislation Increasing State Revenues
Proposition 108
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 71.9%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 108 would amend the State Constitution to require a two-thirds vote in each House of the Legislature to enact a net increase in state revenue through (1) enacting any new or increased tax or statutory fee, (2) reducing or eliminating any exemption or credit on a tax or fee, or (3) making any change in the allocation of tax revenues among the state, counties and cities. If such a measure were passed and signed by the Governor, it would be effective immediately. If the governor vetoes a measure increasing state revenues, it would not become effective unless the Legislature overrides the veto by at least a three-fourths vote in each House of the Legislature. Currently it is possible to enact these measures on a simple majority vote, with a two-thirds vote required to override a governor’s veto.



Under this proposition revenue measures would have to be enacted by the same process currently required for “emergency” laws, with the same supermajority requirements, becoming effective immediately on enactment without the opportunity for a referendum on the revenue measure.



This proposition would not affect (1) increased revenues resulting purely from economic effects, such as inflation or increasing assessed valuations, (2) authorized fees and assessments that are not set or limited by law, such as university tuition, or (3) local taxes, fees or assessments.

[CA]


Retired Judges Allowed to Serve
Unknown2
Election:
General

1958

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.8%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Revenue Limits for Hospitals
Proposition 109
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.0%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2004

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona providing for legislative authority to impose revenue limits on hospitals.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Right to Seek Monetary Damages in Cases of Injury or Death
Proposition 103
Election:
General

1986

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.1%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Arizona relating to regulation of public health, safety and welfare; defining and guaranteeing right to seek monetary damages in cases of injury or death; authorizing legislation with respect to amounts payable for damages other than monetary damages; payment plans to provide for all future damages and continuing care; limits on attorneys’ fees and costs payable from damage awares; prescribing application of amendment to other provisions of the constitution.

[CA]


Right to Vote a Secret Ballot Regarding Employee Representation
Proposition 113
Election:
General

2010

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.5%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 113 would amend the Arizona Constitution to guarantee the fundamental right to vote by secret ballot when a local, state or federal law permits or requires an election, designation or authorization for employee representation.


Right to Work
Unknown5
Election:
General

1948

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 59.0%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Right-to-Work
Unknown5
Election:
General

1946

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.5%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Salaries of Elected State Officers
Proposition 300
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Other

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 41.2%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Recommendation of the Commission on Salaries for Elected State Officers as to legislative salaries have been certified to the secretary of state and are hereby submitted to the qualified electors for their approval or rejection.


Salaries of Legislators
Unknown4
Election:
General

1956

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 36.1%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Salaries, Public Officials
Unknown2
Election:
Special

1953

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.8%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary


Salaries, Teachers, Public Officers
Unknown3
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 32.8%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Labor & Employment | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


School District Debt Limits
Proposition 100
Election:
General

1978

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 35.6%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2024

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to common, high school and unified school district debt limits.

[Constitutional Amendment]


School Trust Land Proceeds
Proposition 300
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 75.0%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
(SCR 1005)

Analysis by Legislative Council:



In 1910, the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act, allowing Arizona to become a state. The Enabling Act granted Arizona millions of acres of land, referred to as “state trust land”. The state land trust is intended to produce revenue for various public institutions (schools, colleges, prisons, etc.). The largest beneficiary of these revenues is the public schools. The state can lease or sell trust land, and the natural products (timber, minerals, etc.) of the land, only to the “highest and best bidder” at public auction.



Revenues earned from state trust land are classified as either permanent or expendable. Revenues derived from the sale of state trust land and the sale of natural products are deposited in a permanent fund by the State Treasurer and invested in stocks, bonds and other interest-bearing securities. The investment income from the permanent fund and the income from leases are expendable revenues for use by the state trust land beneficiaries. Funds are kept separate according to the designated beneficiary.



In 1998, the legislature enacted a law that requires the expendable revenue from the permanent state school fund to be used in the following order of priority: (1) to pay the debt service on state school facilities revenue bonds, (2) subject to legislative appropriation, to fund new school facilities and (3) to fund basic state aid to schools. In 2000, the legislature capped the amount that could be used to support any of these priorities to the fiscal year 2000-2001 level and provided that any expendable earnings that exceeded the fiscal year 2000-2001 earnings level would be placed in a separate fund called the classroom site fund. Pursuant to statutes approved by the voters in 2000, monies in the classroom site fund shall be spent to provide teachers with base salary and performance based compensation increases and development opportunities, reduce class size, fund intervention and dropout prevention programs and pay for teacher liability insurance premiums.



Proposition 300 would: (1) include interest paid on installment sales as expendable revenue subject to distribution, (2) require the state land department in conjunction with the state treasurer to transfer to the state school facilities revenue bond debt service fund an amount necessary to pay the fiscal year’s debt service on outstanding state school facilities revenue bonds, (3) include rent and interest paid on installment sales in the amount that can be distributed for basic state aid to schools and (4) reaffirm the legislature’s action directing expendable earnings above the expendable earnings level in fiscal year 2000-2001 to be deposited in the classroom site fund. In addition, Proposition 300 specifies that the Legislature intends that the additional expendable earnings are to be used to supplement and not supplant existing statutory funding obligations of this state to its public schools.


Segregation in Public School
Unknown19
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 35.7%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Semi-Monthly Pay Day
Proposition 306
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 69.0%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary


Senate, Abolishment of
Unknown7
Election:
General

1916

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.3%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Senior Citizens’ Property Tax Valuation
Proposition 102
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 80.1%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
(HCR 2038)

Analysis by Legislative Council:



In 2000, a majority of the voters approved a ballot measure which amended the Arizona Constitution to allow qualifying senior citizens to freeze the value of their primary residences for property tax purposes. To qualify for the property valuation protection option, the property
owner must be an Arizona resident who is at least sixty-five years old, must have lived in the residence for at least two years, and must have an income that does not exceed 400% of the supplemental security income (SSI) benefit rate. If two or more persons own the property, the
owners’ combined income may not exceed 500% of the SSI benefit rate. Qualifying property owners must reapply for the protection option every three years.



Since the implementation of the 2000 ballot measure, there has been some confusion over the proper income level to use when two or more persons own a property. The Social Security
Act prescribes two SSI benefit rates: a benefit rate for individuals and a benefit rate for two or more persons. Under the 2000 ballot measure, it was unclear whether the qualifying income level of multiple owners should be 500% of the SSI benefit rate for individuals or 500% of the
SSI benefit rate for two or more persons. In 2002, the qualifying income limit for multiple owners is $32,700 when using the SSI benefit rate for individuals and $49,020 when using the SSI benefit rate for two or more persons. By specifically referring to section 1611(b)(1) of the
Social Security Act, Proposition 102 clarifies that the qualifying income limit for multiple owners would be determined by using 500% of the SSI benefit rate for individuals. Therefore, under Proposition 102, multiple owners who have an income that exceeds $32,700 would not be
eligible for the property valuation protection option.
Proposition 102 also clarifies that property owners must apply or reapply to the county assessor for the property valuation protection option on or before September 1 of the applicable year. The assessor must notify the resident whether the application is accepted or denied by
December 1. If the property owner files the application after September 1, the assessor shall process the application for the following year.


Sessions of the Legislature
Unknown3
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.5%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Small Business Job Creation Act
Proposition 116
Election:
General

2012

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44.1% (Unofficial))
Topic Areas:
Agriculture | Business & Commerce | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
The Arizona Constitution currently provides that all property in Arizona is subject to property taxation unless it is specifically exempted from tax as authorized by the Constitution.



Proposition 116, known as the Small Business Job Creation Act, would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow the state to exempt from taxation the “full cash value” of equipment and machinery or “personal property” used in agriculture or in a trade or business, up to an amount equal to the annual earnings of fifty workers in this state. This exemption would apply to equipment and machinery initially acquired beginning in the 2013 tax year. To determine the amount of the exemption, the state would designate a national measure of employee earnings, which would be adjusted annually.



Under current Arizona law, the first $50,000 of full cash value of a taxpayer’s equipment and machinery used in agriculture or in a trade or business is exempt from tax. The amount is adjusted annually for inflation, and is currently set at $68,079. The current exemption would continue to apply to equipment and machinery initially acquired before the 2013 tax year.



“Full cash value” refers to the market value of property unless a specific formula for valuing property for tax purposes is set out in law.



“Personal property” refers to property that is not part of real estate and includes such things as machinery, equipment and store fixtures.


Smoke-Free Arizona Act
Proposition 201
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.8%)
Topic Areas:
Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Health | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



Currently, state statutes provide that smoking tobacco is prohibited in certain areas and most state buildings. A person who smokes where smoking is prohibited is guilty of a petty offense. Several cities and towns also have restrictions on smoking in public places.



Proposition 201 would prohibit smoking in all public places and places of employment, except as provided by the proposition. These exceptions include:



1. Retail tobacco stores that are physically separated and independently ventilated.



2. Veterans and fraternal clubs when they are not open to the public.



3. Hotel rooms designated as smoking rooms.



4. Outdoor patios.



Proposition 201 would increase the state tax on cigarettes from $1.18 per pack to $1.20 per pack. Taxes on cigars and other tobacco products would not be increased by this proposition. Revenues collected from this tax would be deposited in a new Smoke-Free Arizona Fund to be administered by the Department of Health Services (DHS) to pay for enforcement and education costs.



Proposition 201 also would prescribe notice and other requirements for operating establishments to implement the smoking restrictions. In addition, an employer could not retaliate against an employee for exercising any rights provided by the proposition.



A person who smokes where smoking is prohibited would be guilty of a petty offense.



Under the proposition, DHS would implement and enforce these smoking restrictions. DHS would be required to design and implement a program to educate the public and business owners about the smoking restrictions. DHS would also be authorized to accept complaints about and investigate violations of the smoking restrictions. Proposition 201 would also require DHS to assess a civil penalty of at least $100 but less than $500 for each violation.



Proposition 201 would not prohibit or repeal more restrictive city, town or county laws.



FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT



State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal impact of certain ballot measures. Proposition 201 increases the tax on cigarettes by 2 cents a pack and allocates the monies to the Department of Health Services for enforcement and education provisions. State and local governments may receive additional revenues in the form of civil penalties, fines and penalty assessments from violators of the provisions of the proposition. The total amount of these collections will depend on the level of compliance, which is difficult to predict in advance.



The tax increase is estimated to generate $4.7 million in new revenue for the state in its first full year. Because some individuals may reduce their tobacco consumption when the price of tobacco increases, the state’s existing tobacco tax collections may decrease. At 2 cents per pack, the impact of the tax on existing collections is projected to be minimal. The existing tobacco tax goes to health programs, prisons and the State General Fund.

[S]


Social Security and Public Welfare
Unknown16
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.8%)
Topic Areas:
Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Sovereign Authority of the State
Proposition 122
Election:
General

2014

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.4% unofficial)
Topic Areas:
Federal Government | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Permits the state to exercise its sovereign authority to restrict its personnel and the use of its financial resources to purposes that are consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of allowing the state to restrict the state and all local governments from from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with a federal action or program that is not consistent with the Constitution of the United States. The state’s authority is exercised if the state passes an initiative, referendum, bill or pursues any other available legal remedy.


Standing in Civil Actions
Proposition 102
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 74.2%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



A person who wins a civil lawsuit may receive two types of damages-compensatory and punitive. Compensatory damages are awarded to compensate the injured party for the injuries sustained by making good or replacing the loss caused by the injury. Punitive damages are awarded in excess of compensatory damages to punish the person sued for a serious wrong and to discourage others from engaging in similar wrongful conduct.



Proposition 102 would prohibit a person who wins a civil lawsuit from receiving punitive damages if the person is present in this state in violation of federal immigration law related to improper entry.


State and School Lands
Unknown6
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 69.4%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


State Architect
Unknown10
Election:
General

1916

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 27.8%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


State Auditor Office Abolished
Unknown8
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.6%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


State Board of Education
Unknown9
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 25.4%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


State Board of Education
Proposition 105
Election:
General

2004

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.1%)
Topic Areas:
Education: Higher Ed | Education: PreK-12 | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1022

The Arizona Constitution creates a State Board of Education consisting of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and 8 members appointed by the Governor: the president of a state university or college, a superintendent of a high school district, a classroom teacher, a county school superintendent, three public members and a member of the state junior college board. The powers and duties of the State Board of Education are established in state statutes, and include exercising general supervision over and regulating the conduct of the public school system. The successor agency to the state junior college board was eliminated in 2003.



Proposition 105 would amend the Arizona Constitution by changing the membership of the State Board of Education. The member of the state junior college board would be replaced by a president or chancellor of a community college district. Two additional members would be added: one additional public member and one owner or administrator of a charter school.


State Board of Education
Proposition 102
Election:
General

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 66.1%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1009 – Ordered placed on the ballot as five separate questions by the attorney general in responses to a question propounded by the governor.

An amendment relating to the State Board of Education; requiring that consent of the senate to the appointment of certain members of the board by the governor shall be “in the manner prescribed by law.”

[Constitutional Amendment]


State Board of Education
Proposition 104
Election:
General

1982

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 35.2%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1003

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to education; prescribing the composition of the State Board of Education.

[Constitutional Amendment]


State Board of Education, Composition of
Unknown2
Election:
General

1964

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.8%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


State Boundary Line, Alter
Unknown3
Election:
General

1956

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.0%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


State Examiner Office Abolished
Unknown7
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.6%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


State Expenditures, Limit on
Unknown1
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.1%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


State Highway Bonds
Unknown5
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 39.3%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


State Highway Department, Create
Unknown9
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 39.7%)
Topic Areas:
State Government | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


State Land Exchanges
Proposition 101
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.8%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
(SCR 1004)

Analysis by Legislative Council:



In 1910, the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act, allowing Arizona to become a state. The Enabling Act granted Arizona millions of acres of land,
referred to as “state trust land”. The state land trust is intended to produce revenue for various public institutions (schools, colleges, prisons, etc.). The state can lease or sell trust land, and the natural products (timber, minerals, etc.) of the land, only to the “highest and best bidder” at public auction.



In 1936, Congress amended the Enabling Act to give Arizona more flexibility in managing and disposing of trust land by allowing the state to exchange trust land for other public
or private lands. The state never amended its Constitution to incorporate that authority for land exchanges, but the state did enact statutes to provide for these exchanges of land. Acting under its statutory authority, the State Land Department has periodically exchanged state trust land
with the federal government and with private landowners. In 1990, the State Supreme Court determined that without amending the Arizona Constitution the state cannot conduct land exchanges. Subsequently, the State Land Department ceased the land exchange program.



Proposition 101 would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow the state to exchange state trust land only for other public land and only if the exchange is in the best interest of the state land trust and the exchange conserves open space on the trust land offered by the state. In
order to permit the exchange, there must be public hearings to provide for public comment on the proposed exchange, the appraised value of the land the state receives in the exchange must at least equal the appraised value of the trust land the state exchanges, the state trust income must
not be reduced, the financial impact of the exchange on each county, city or town and school district in which the lands are located must be analyzed and the physical, economic and natural resource impacts of the exchange on the surrounding community and local land uses and land
use plans must be analyzed.


State Lands
Proposition 100
Election:
General

2004

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.8%)
Topic Areas:
Environmental Protection | Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1012

In 1910, the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act, allowing Arizona to become a state. The Enabling Act granted Arizona millions of acres of land, referred to as “state trust land”. The state land trust is intended to produce revenue for various public institutions (schools, colleges, prisons, etc.). The state can lease or sell trust land, and the natural products (timber, minerals, etc.) of the land, only to the “highest and best bidder” at public auction.



In 1936, Congress amended the Enabling Act to give Arizona more flexibility in managing and disposing of trust land by allowing the state to exchange trust land for other public or private lands. Arizona did not amend its state Constitution to incorporate that authority for land exchanges, but the state did enact statutes to provide for these exchanges of land. Acting under its statutory authority, the State Land Department has periodically exchanged state trust land with the federal government and with private landowners. In 1990, the State Supreme Court determined that without amending the Arizona Constitution the state cannot conduct land exchanges. Subsequently, the State Land Department ceased the land exchange program.



Proposition 100 would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow the state to exchange state trust land for other public land. The exchange must be in the best interest of the state land trust and the exchange must either conserve open space on the trust land offered by the state or assist in preserving military airports in Arizona. In order to permit the exchange, there must be public hearings to provide for public comment on the proposed exchange, the appraised value of the land the state receives in the exchange must at least equal the appraised value of the trust land the state exchanges, the state trust income must not be reduced, the financial impact of the exchange on each county, city or town and school district in which the lands are located must be analyzed and the physical, economic and natural resource impacts of the exchange on the surrounding community and local land uses and land use plans must be analyzed.


State Lands
Unknown1
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.7%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


State Lands, Lease
Unknown10
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.3%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


State Lands, Limiting Sale of Agricultural and Grazing Lands
Unknown4
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.3%)
Topic Areas:
Agriculture | Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


State Lands, Regulate Sale
Unknown3
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.1%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


State Legislator’s Salaries
Proposition 304
Election:
General

2014

Type:
Other

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 31.7% unofficial)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
THE COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTIVE STATE OFFICERS RECOMMENDS THE SALARIES OF LEGISLATORS TO BE INCREASED TO $35,000.


State Legislators Salaries
Proposition 302
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Other

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.7%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
The Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers recommends the salaries of legislators be increased to $36,000.


State Legislators’ Salaries
Proposition 300
Election:
General

2008

Type:
Other

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 35.8%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Recommendation of the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers as to legislative salaries has been certified to the secretary of state and is hereby submitted to the qualified electors for their approval or rejection.



Provides for an increase in the salaries of state legislators from $24,000 to $30,000 per year.


State Lottery Continuation
Proposition 301
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.7%)
Topic Areas:
Gambling & Lotteries

Summary: Click for Summary
(HCR 2012)

Analysis by Legislative Council:



Proposition 301 would amend state law to continue the Arizona State Lottery until July 1, 2012.



All state agencies, including the Arizona State Lottery, have a scheduled termination date that is periodically reviewed by the State Legislature. In November, 1998, the State Legislature asked the voters to decide whether to continue the Arizona State Lottery until July 1, 2003. A majority of voters approved the continuation in 1998 and the Arizona State Lottery is now scheduled to terminate on July 1, 2003.



Article IV, part 1, section 1 of the Arizona Constitution prohibits the Legislature from amending any ballot measure approved by the voters at or after the November, 1998 general election without a three-fourths vote of each house of the Legislature. Accordingly, the Legislature may only extend the termination date of the Arizona State Lottery with a three-fourths vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. However, a majority of the voters (rather than a three-fourths supermajority) may vote to extend the Lottery’s termination date. With Proposition 301, the State Legislature is again asking the voters to decide whether to continue the Arizona State Lottery. If the voters approve Proposition 301, the Arizona State Lottery will be scheduled to terminate on July 1, 2012. If the voters do not approve Proposition 301, current law provides for the Arizona State Lottery to terminate on July 1, 2003.


State Officers, 4-Year Terms
Unknown3
Election:
General

1933

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.0%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


State Officers, Coterminous with Gov.
Unknown3
Election:
General

1938

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.7%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


State Officers, Tenure
Unknown1
Election:
General

1926

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.3%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


State Parks Board, Game and Fish Commission; State Lottery Funding
Proposition 200
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.1%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Gambling & Lotteries | Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
To provide for annual funding from state lottery revenues for the Arizona State Parks Board Heritage Fund and the Arizona Game and Fish Commission Heritage Fund for the purposes of preserving, protecting, and enhancing Arizona’s natural and scenic environment, historical and cultural heritage, biological diversity, state, regional and local parks for outdoor recreation and open space, wildlife and wildlife habitat, endangered and threatened species, urban wildlife, trails, and for environmental education; to establish definitions and guidelines for determining how such monies and interest earned from such monies shall be expended annually and for the administration of such programs by the Arizona State Parks Board and the Arizona Game and Fish Commission.

[S]


State Reclamation Service
Unknown4
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.0%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.

[CA]


State Sales Tax: 25% to Cities and Towns Instead of 10%
Unknown3
Election:
General

1960

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 69.8%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


State Sovereignty
Proposition 120
Election:
General

2012

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 32.1% (Unofficial))
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Federal Government

Summary: Click for Summary
In 1910, the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act, allowing Arizona to become a state. The Enabling Act also granted Arizona approximately 10.9 million acres of state trust land, subject to certain terms for the management, operation, use and disposition of those trust lands.



Proposition 120 would amend the Arizona Constitution to declare Arizona’s sovereign and exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within the state’s boundaries. Specifically excluded from this declaration are Indian reservations, lands of the United States and federal “forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings” obtained for federal government purposes, as required by Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the United States Constitution.



Proposition 120 also would amend the Arizona Constitution to repeal Arizona’s disclaimer of all right and title to public lands within the state (except Indian reservations) and to repeal Arizona’s consent to provisions of the Enabling Act.



Proposition 120 would declare that each state possesses full attributes of sovereignty on an equal footing with all other states, as provided by the United States Constitution, and that state sovereignty is fundamental to the security of individual rights, free government and the inherent political power of the people.


State Tax Commission, Election of Members
Unknown2
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 27.5%)
Topic Areas:
State Government | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


State Treasurer
Proposition 102
Election:
General

1980

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.9%)
Topic Areas:
Elections | State Government | Term Limits

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2009

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to the executive department; prescribing ineligibility of state treasurer to hold office for more than two consecutive elected terms.

[Constitutional Amendment]


State Trust Land; Exchange
Proposition 100
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.1%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1002

Authorizes the state to exchange state trust land for public or private land.

[Constitutional Amendment]


State Trust Lands
Proposition 110
Election:
General

2010

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.7%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
In 1910, the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act, allowing Arizona to become a state. The Enabling Act granted Arizona approximately 10.9 million acres of land, referred to as “state trust land”. The state land trust is intended to produce revenue for various public institutions (schools, colleges, prisons, etc.). The state can lease or sell trust land, and the natural products (timber, minerals, etc.) of the land, only to the “highest and best bidder” at public auction.



In 1936, Congress amended the Enabling Act to give Arizona more flexibility in managing and disposing of trust land by allowing the state to exchange trust land for other public or private lands. Arizona did not amend its state Constitution to incorporate that authority for land exchanges. The Arizona Supreme Court has determined that without amending the Arizona Constitution the state cannot conduct land exchanges.



Proposition 110 would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow the state to dispose of (for example, sell or lease) state trust land or interests in trust land or to place restrictions on interests or rights in trust lands, without advertisement or auction, in order to avoid incompatible use of the trust land that would interfere with military installations, facilities, ranges, airspace or operations or to enable military combat readiness and allow full spectrum test and training operations.



Proposition 110 would also amend the Arizona Constitution to allow the state to exchange state trust land for other public land. The exchange must be in the best interest of the state land trust. The purpose of the exchange must be to either assist in preserving and protecting military facilities in this state from encroaching development or for the proper management, protection or public use of state lands. There must be two independent appraisals that show that the true value of the land the state receives in the exchange is equal to or greater than the true value of the trust land the state conveys. There must also be two independent analyses that detail the income to the state land trust before and the projected income to the trust after the exchange, the financial impact of the exchange on each county, city, town and school district in which the lands are located, the physical, economic and natural resource impacts of the exchange on the local community and the impacts on local land uses and land use plans. A detailed public notice of a proposed exchange must be given, public hearings must be held and an opportunity for public comment must be given. A proposed exchange is not effective unless it is approved by the voters at a statewide November general election.


State Trust Lands
Proposition 119
Election:
General

2012

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.4% (Unofficial))
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights | Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
In 1910, the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act, allowing Arizona to become a state. The Enabling Act granted Arizona approximately 10.9 million acres of land, referred to as “state trust land”. The state land trust is intended to produce revenue for various public institutions (schools, colleges, prisons, etc.). The state can lease or sell trust land, and the natural products (timber, minerals, etc.) of the land, only to the “highest and best bidder” at public auction.



In 1936, Congress amended the Enabling Act to give Arizona more flexibility in managing and disposing of trust land by allowing the state to exchange trust land for other public or private lands. Arizona did not amend its state Constitution to incorporate that authority for land exchanges. The Arizona Supreme Court has determined that without amending the Arizona Constitution, the state cannot conduct land exchanges.



Proposition 119 would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow the state to exchange state trust land for other public land in this state if the following requirements are met:



1. The exchange must be in the best interest of the state land trust.



2. The purpose of the exchange must be to either assist in preserving and protecting military facilities in this state from encroaching development or to improve the management of state lands for the purpose of sale or lease, or conversion of state land to public use.



3. There must be two independent appraisals that show that the true value of the land the state receives in the exchange is equal to or greater than the true value of the trust land the state conveys. There also must be two independent analyses that detail the income to the state land trust before and the projected income to the trust after the exchange, the financial impact of the exchange on each county, city, town and school district in which the lands are located, the physical, economic and natural resource impacts of the exchange on the local community and the impacts on local land uses and land use plans.



4. A detailed public notice of a proposed exchange must be given, public hearings must be held and an opportunity for public comment must be given.



5. A proposed exchange is not effective unless it is approved by the voters at a statewide November general election.


State Trust Lands
Proposition 105
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 28.7%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

In 1910, the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act, allowing Arizona to become a state. The Enabling Act granted Arizona 10.9 million acres of land, referred to as “state trust land”, to be held in trust for the benefit of the named beneficiaries, primarily the public schools, as well as other public institutions (colleges, hospitals, prisons, etc.). Both the Enabling Act and the Arizona Constitution provide that the state can lease or sell trust land, and the natural products (timber, minerals, etc.) of the land, to the “highest and best bidder” at advertised public auction and lands and products offered for sale must be appraised at and sold for not less than “true value.” Proposition 105 would amend the Arizona Constitution to:



1. Allow trust land in urban areas that was classified or eligible for designation as suitable for conservation prior to 2005 to be conveyed to a county, city or town without advertisement or auction upon payment of compensation. Any lease, right-of-way or other use in existence may continue.



2. Require the legislature to create a method for designating up to 400,000 acres of trust land outside of urban areas for conservation purposes and conveying those lands without advertisement, auction or compensation to the county in which the land is located. Any lease, right-of-way or other use in existence may continue.



3. Generally provide that the newspaper advertising period for the public auction of trust lands be reduced from 10 consecutive weeks to 5 consecutive weeks, while adding a new requirement that the auction notice be posted on the State Land Department web site for at least 35 days prior to the auction.



4. Allow the granting of public rights-of-way on trust land to governmental entities without advertisement or auction.



5. Allow trust land to be leased without auction.



6. Require that rights-of-way for public roadways originating before 1968 shall be granted without requiring further payment.



7. Generally provide that any trust land designated as conservation land must be held in trust by a governmental entity, be restricted against “development” and be managed in a manner consistent with “conservation”, but not required to be accessible to the public unless and until conveyed out of the state land trust, as those terms are defined in this proposal.



8. Require that any commercial land use planning for trust lands in an urban area be prepared in consultation with the county, city or town where the land is located, according to generally applicable regulations that apply equally to similar private property in the jurisdiction. The land use plan, however, may designate a greater portion of trust land as suitable for conservation, and that land may be conveyed to the county, city or town, without advertisement or auction, for money or other forms of value if:

a. The disposition of the conservation land brings benefit to other trust land subject to the plan.

b. The value of all of the trust land subject to the plan is not diminished.



Section 4 of Proposition 105, relating to nonurban conservation lands, does not become effective if Proposition 106 is enacted by the voters at the November, 2006 election. Proposition 105 does not become fully effective unless the United States Congress amends the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act prior to 2009 to authorize the changes contained in this proposal.


Superior Court
Proposition 103
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.2%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1006

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to the superior court; providing that jury be drawn and summoned from portion of county as designated by court rule if one or more judicial districts are established in the county pursuant to court rule.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Superior Courts, Consolidate into One
Unknown2
Election:
General

1948

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.5%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Tax Exemption for Certain Property
Proposition 103
Election:
General

1982

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44.2%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2020

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona providing for a tax exemption for certain property in slum or blighted areas.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Tax Exemption for Privately-Owned Airports
Proposition 103
Election:
General

1980

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 41.3%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2009

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to public debt, revenue and taxation; prescribing exemption from taxation of certain areas of privately-owned airports.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Tax Exemption, Servicemen
Unknown4
Election:
General

1946

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.1%)
Topic Areas:
Military & Veterans Affairs | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Tax Exemption, Widows, Soldiers, Sailors, and Army Nurses
Unknown1
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.1%)
Topic Areas:
Human Services | Military & Veterans Affairs | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Tax Exemptions; Limitations for Widows
Unknown2
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 68.4%)
Topic Areas:
Human Services | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Tax Exemptions; Phase Out for Veterans; Disabled Vets
Unknown1
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.6%)
Topic Areas:
Military & Veterans Affairs | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Tax Free Homes
Unknown2
Election:
General

1938

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.5%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Tax Free Homes
Unknown3
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.3%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Tax Limitation
Unknown4
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.4%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Taxation, Exemption from
Unknown2
Election:
General

1916

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.9%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Taxation, method
Proposition 102
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 87.5%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary


Taxation, Property Survey Law
Unknown6
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 26.1%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Taxation-No Higher than Citizens
Unknown1
Election:
General

1927

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 74.6%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Temporary Transaction Privilege and Use Taxes
Proposition 100
Election:
Special

2010

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 64.3%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Health | Human Services | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Considered on May 18, 2010.



SCR 1001 constitutionally levies an additional, temporary 1% transaction privilege tax (TPT) and use tax for three years, subject to voter approval.



History

Arizona’s TPT is imposed on the privilege of transacting business in this state. The tax rates on various taxable activities range from 2.5% to 5%, depending on the type of business, with most rates at 5%. In addition, most taxable activities also include a state rate of 0.6% dedicated for education purposes.



The TPT base is divided into two parts, the distribution base and the non-shared portion. The distribution base is split three ways: 25% goes to the incorporated municipalities, 40.51% goes to the counties, and the remaining 34.49% is deposited in the state General Fund (GF). There are no restrictions on how local governments use their shared revenues from this source. The non-shared portion is deposited directly in the GF.



The use tax is imposed on the purchase prices of tangible personal property that is purchased out-of-state and brought into Arizona for use. The tax is imposed when a TPT equal to or greater than the Arizona rate was not paid. The revenues from the use tax are all deposited in the GF.



Fiscal Impact



According to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC), if SCR 1001 is approved by the voters, there will be no impact to the GF in FY 2009-10. JLBC estimates an increase in TPT and use tax revenues of $943 million in FY 2010-11, $968 million in FY 2011-12, and $1 billion in FY 2012-13.



Provisions

· Proposes a temporary amendment to the Arizona Constitution to provide a 1% increase of the state TPT and use tax imposed on the current taxable base subject to a rate of 5% or more.

· If approved, directs the tax to be levied and collected beginning on June 1, 2010 and continue for 36 consecutive months.

· Specifies the tax is separate from, and in addition to, the current state TPT and use tax rates and will not be distributed to counties, municipalities, or other government entities.

· Directs the tax revenues to be separately accounted for in the state General Fund as follows:

— Two-thirds appropriated to public primary and secondary education.

— One-third appropriated to health and human services and public safety.

· Stipulates the tax is subject to the same exemptions, deductions, and exclusions currently provided by law for TPT and use tax.

· Provides for the tax to be administered and collected in the same manner currently provided by law for TPT and use tax.

· Maintains any unpaid tax liability incurred while the tax was in effect is still an obligation of the taxpayer that is due and payable after the expiration of the tax.

· Repeals the temporary tax on May 31, 2013.

· Requires the Secretary of State to submit the temporary constitutional tax increase to the voters at a special election called on May 18, 2010.


Terms of Executive Officers
Unknown4
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.8%)
Topic Areas:
Elections | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


The Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act
Proposition 206
Election:
General

2016

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 59.0% unofficial)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
The Fair Wages and Healthy Families Initiative increases minimum wage to $10 in 2017 then gradually to $12 by 2020; provides 40 hours annual “earned paid sick time” for employees of large employers (24 hours for those of small employers); time accrues at one hour earned for every 30 hours worked; time may be used to address circumstances caused by illness of employee or employee’s family, public health emergencies, or domestic violence; prohibits retaliating against employees using the benefit; allows for more generous paid time-off policies; and exempts employees who expressly waive the benefit under collective bargaining agreements.


The Judicial Department
Proposition 115
Election:
General

2012

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 27.5% (Unofficial))
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 115 would amend the Arizona Constitution to make the following changes relating to the selection and retention of state judges and justices:



1. The terms of state Superior Court judges would be extended from four years to eight years; the terms of state Court of Appeals judges and state Supreme Court justices would be extended from six years to eight years.



2. The mandatory retirement age for state judges and justices would be extended from seventy to seventy-five.



3. The appointment authority for the five attorney members of each commission that nominates applicants to fill judicial vacancies would be amended as follows:

(a) The Governor would appoint four attorneys to each nominating commission and the president of the State Bar of Arizona would appoint one attorney to each nominating commission. Currently, the State Bar of Arizona nominates and the Governor appoints all five attorney members of each commission.

(b) The five attorney members would be required to have resided in and been licensed to practice law for ten years in Arizona and must not have any formal complaints or sanctions with the State Bar of Arizona. Currently, the attorney members must have resided in and been licensed to practice law for five years in Arizona.



4. The minimum number of judicial nominees to be submitted by a nominating commission to the Governor for a judicial vacancy would be increased from three to eight, and the limitations on the number of nominees from a particular political party would be repealed. An applicant who receives a majority vote for nomination shall be nominated for the vacancy. By a two-thirds vote, a nominating commission may reject an applicant and submit fewer than eight nominees for a judicial vacancy.



5. If more than one vacancy exists in the same court at the same time, the nominating commission would be required to submit at least six judicial nominees for each vacancy, and could not submit the same nominee for more than one vacancy. The Governor would be allowed to appoint any of the nominees submitted for any of the vacancies in that court.



6. The Supreme Court would be required to make opinions and orders of state judges and justices available electronically on the Supreme Court website, unless the opinion or order is sealed or confidential pursuant to law.



7. Sixty days before the general election for the retention of state judges and justices, a joint legislative committee would be authorized to meet and take testimony on the state judges and justices who are up for retention. A copy of the judicial performance review of each state judge or justice that is conducted under current law would be required to be transmitted to the Legislature prior to that meeting.


The Land Conservation Fund
Proposition 301
Election:
General

2010

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 26.0%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
The Land Conservation Fund consists of monies appropriated from the state general fund and monies received as donations. $20,000,000 was appropriated annually for 11 years from the state general fund to the Land Conservation Fund. The final appropriation is scheduled in fiscal year 2010-2011. Monies in the fund must be used to award grants to:



1. Acquire and conserve state trust land or development rights in state trust land.



2. Implement conservation based management or reduce production on state lands leased for agricultural purposes.



Proposition 301 would transfer the remaining balance in the Land Conservation Fund to the state general fund.


Tobacco Products Tax; Health Services
Proposition 303
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 66.2%)
Topic Areas:
Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Health | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
(HCR 2047)

Analysis by Legislative Council:



In 1994, the voters passed the Tobacco Tax for Health Care Purposes initiative. The initiative increased the state tax on cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products and directed that the additional revenue generated by the tax be used for health care and education and research related to preventing and reducing tobacco use. The monies collected are deposited in the Tobacco Tax and Health Care Fund and allocated to four separate accounts.



Proposition 303 would increase the state tax on cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products. The following shows the proposed tax rates on each class of tobacco product:



Cigarettes: Current rate is 2.9 cents each (58 cents per pack); proposed additional tax is 3 cents each (60 cents per pack); total proposed tax 5.9 cents each ($1.18 per pack).



Smoking tobacco, snuff, fine cut chewing tobacco and similar products: Current rate is 6.5 cents per ounce; proposed additional tax is 6.8 cents per ounce; total proposed tax is 13.3 cents per ounce.



Cavendish, plug or twist tobacco: Current rate is 1.6 cents per ounce; proposed additional tax is 1.7 cents per ounce; total proposed tax is 3.3 cents per ounce.



Small cigars (weighing not more than 3 pounds per 1,000): Current rate is 12.9 cents per twenty; proposed additional tax is 13.4 cents per 20; total proposed tax is 26.3 cents per 20.



All other cigars (retailing at not more than 5 cents each): Current rate is 6.4 cents per 3; proposed additional tax is 6.6 cents per 3; total proposed tax is 13 cents per 3.



All other cigars (retailing at more than 5 cents each): Current rate is 6.4 cents per 3; proposed additional tax is 6.6 cents per 3; total proposed tax is 13 cents per 3.



Revenues collected from this tax would be deposited in a new Tobacco Products Tax Fund to be administered by the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) administration. The AHCCCS administration would distribute the monies in the fund in the following manner:



1. Forty-two percent to the Proposition 204 Protection Account for programs and services dedicated to the expanded population eligible for coverage under AHCCCS as a result of the 2000 ballot measure that allocated monies from the tobacco litigation settlement.

2. Twenty-seven percent to the Tobacco Tax and Health Care Fund Medically Needy Account for services to low income and indigent persons.

3. Twenty percent to the Emergency Health Services Account for the reimbursement of uncompensated care, primary care services and trauma center readiness costs.

4. Five percent to the Health Research Fund for research on preventing and treating tobacco-related disease and addiction and other diseases.

5. Four percent to the Health Care Adjustment Account for distribution to other accounts under the Tobacco Tax and Health Care Fund to compensate for decreases in those accounts due to lower tobacco tax revenues from fewer sales as a result of the new tax on tobacco products.

6. Two percent to the Tobacco Tax and Health Care Fund Health Education Account for the prevention and early detection of the four leading disease-related causes of death in Arizona.



Proposition 303 would repeal and, with a few exceptions, reenact word-for-word the current statute that establishes the Tobacco Tax and Health Care Fund Health Education Account. By doing this future legislatures would be prevented by the Arizona Constitution from making any substantial changes to this account. Proposition 303 would reenact the current Health Education Account statute with the following changes: (1) allows the Department of Health Services (DHS) to use a portion of account monies for evaluations of the tobacco education and prevention programs funded by other account monies, (2) requires DHS to use monies deposited in the account from the Tobacco Products Tax Fund for prevention and early detection of the four leading disease-related causes of death in Arizona as determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (initially, cancer, heart disease, stroke and pulmonary disease) and (3) eliminates the requirement that the Auditor General conduct evaluations of the account programs.



In addition, Proposition 303 would require the Legislature to establish by January 1, 2004 a Tobacco Revenue Use, Spending and Tracking Commission to advise and consult with DHS on the goals, objectives and activities of the tobacco education prevention programs funded by Health Education Account monies.


Train Crews
Proposition 301
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 59.3%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary


Train Crews: Eliminating Feather-bedding
Unknown6
Election:
General

1964

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 52.8%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Transaction Privilege Tax
Proposition 300
Election:
General

1974

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.4%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
NOTE: It is unclear from the records provided by the Arizona Secretary of State whether this measure was referred to the ballot by the legislature or was petitioned onto the ballot by the people.



Chapter 2, House 2001, 31st Legislature, First Special Session. An amendment of Section 42-1312, Arizona Revised Statutes, and Title 42, Chapter 8, Arizona Revised Statutes is amended by adding Article 1.3, Sec. 20. Referendum; transaction privilege tax; food exemption; reimbursement tax; vote.


Tribal-State Gaming Compact, Scholarship and Elderly Care Act of 2002
Proposition 200
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 15.2%)
Topic Areas:
Education: Higher Ed | Gambling & Lotteries | Health | Human Services | State-Tribal Relations

Summary: Click for Summary
Analysis by Legislative Council:



Proposition 200 directs the Governor to enter into tribal gaming compacts allowing Indian tribes to operate slot machines and card and table games on tribal land. Tribes would contribute 3% of “annual net income” (defined as the annual total amount of money collected from Class III gaming, less any annual amounts paid out as prizes or paid for prizes awarded and annual labor and other operating expenses and annual interest expenses, depreciation and amortization) to the state to fund university, community college and tribal college scholarships, programs benefiting senior citizens, tribal education purposes and tribal elderly health care services. These distributions are
outside the regular legislative process.



Arizona has entered into gaming compacts with 17 of the state’s 21 Indian tribes. These compacts permit the tribes to operate specific gaming activities, including slot
machines, that are, according to a federal court decision on appeal, illegal off of Indian reservations. These compacts begin to expire in the summer of 2003.



Proposition 200 directs the Governor to enter into a new gaming compact with each Indian tribe that requests it. All compacts must have the following provisions:

· Term – 20 years. May be extended for an unlimited number of additional 20-year terms at the request of the tribe.

· Facilities – Each tribe may operate 3 gaming facilities. The tribe and the Governor may agree to authorize additional facilities.

· Games – Tribes may offer all forms of gambling legal under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act including slot machines, card and table games including blackjack, poker, roulette, craps and baccarat, wagering on horse and dog races, lottery games, bingo and keno. Each tribe may operate 1000 slot machines or the number of machines that the tribe currently operates (whichever is greater) and may operate 20 gaming tables at each facility. Tribes may offer keno games at no more than 2 facilities unless the Governor and tribe agree on a greater number. The number of slot machines allowed increases each year based on changes in the state’s population.

· Transfer provisions – Tribes may transfer a portion or all of their slot machine allotments to other tribes.

· Revenue – Each tribe must contribute 3% of the tribe’s net income from gaming to the Arizona College Scholarship and Elderly Care Fund. Monies are distributed to universities, community colleges and tribal colleges for scholarships, to programs throughout the state that benefit senior citizens and to Indian tribes to be used for educational purposes and for elderly health care services. In addition, each tribe must pay an annual fee of $500 per slot machine to the state to reimburse the state for
administrative costs incurred in relation to Indian gaming.

· Disclosure – Each tribe’s contribution to the Arizona College Scholarship and Elderly Care Fund is confidential, but the Arizona Department of Gaming may make public
the aggregate contributions from all tribes. The Director of the Arizona Department of Gaming also must annually disclose the amount of money collected from the tribes
as administrative costs.

· Regulation – Gaming facility operators must keep surveillance logs that are open to inspection by the Arizona Department of Gaming, but no other records are subject to Department of Gaming inspection, including financial and accounting records. Tribes must investigate reported compact or tribal gaming ordinance violations and require gaming facility operators to correct violations. Tribes must notify the Arizona Department of Gaming within 48 hours when a violation is reported. Tribes must license gaming employees who are not enrolled tribal members. Tribes must also license each manufacturer and supplier of gaming devices and each person providing gaming goods and services in excess of $50,000 in any single month. The state must certify nonenrolled tribal members who are involved in gaming or financial activities, manufacturers and suppliers of gaming devices and persons providing gaming goods and services in excess of $50,000 in any single month. The tribal gaming office is authorized to conduct investigations of compact violations. The Department of Gaming has access to tribal gaming office reports but is not authorized to conduct independent investigations.

· Results of Statewide Expansion of Gambling – If state law changes to allow anyone other than Indian tribes to offer slot machines or card and table games for profit or if the state imposes any additional assessments related to gaming on Indian tribes, the tribes no longer have to make payments for regulatory costs or to the Arizona College Scholarship and Elderly Care Fund and the limitations on slot machines and card and table games become null and void.

[S]


U.S. Congresssman or Representative: Special Primary and General Elections
Unknown2
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.9%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Uniform Auto Lien Tax
Unknown6
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.4%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Use Of Investigational Drugs, Biological Products And Devices
Proposition 303
Election:
General

2014

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 78.3% unofficial )
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Allows a manufacturer to make available to an eligible terminally ill patient a drug, biological product or device that has successfully completed phase one of a clinical trial but has not been approved for general use by the United States Food and Drug Administration.

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of allowing a manufacturer to make an investigational drug, biological product or device to an eligible terminally ill patient. It exempts a patient from regulatory action based solely on the physician’s recommendation of the drug, product or device to the eligible terminally ill patient and classifies, as a class 1 misdemeanor, any attempt by a state official, employee, or agent to block access of the investigational drug, biological product or device to an eligible terminally ill patient.


Use of Vehicle, User & Gasoline & Diesel Tax Receipts
Unknown5
Election:
General

1970

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 69.0%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Vaccination, Minors with Consent of Parent
Unknown9
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.0%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Vehicle, User and Gasoline and Diesel Taxes
Proposition 105
Election:
General

1974

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 32.8%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1003

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to use and distribution of vehicle, user and gasoline and diesel tax receipts.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Victims’ Bill of Rights
Proposition 104
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.1%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Recognizing victims’ rights to justice and due process; providing that victims shall have the right to be treated with fairness, respect and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse; the right to be informed, upon request, about escapes or releases; the right to be present at and, upon request, to be informed of all proceedings where the defendant has the right to be present; the right to be heard at certain proceedings; the right to refuse an interview, deposition, or other discovery request by the defendant or other person on his behalf; the right to confer with the prosecution at certain stages and to be informed of the disposition; the right to read pre-sentence reports; the right to receive prompt restitution…

[CA]


Voluntary Auto Insurance System; Recovery of Damages; Limitation
Proposition 105
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 17.3%)
Topic Areas:
Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
Relating to compensation for motor vehicle accidents, allowing the enactment of a consumer choice in motor vehicle accident compensation law; and declaration of rights and labor, abrogating and limiting the right to claim or recover damages in certain circumstances in exchange for benefits.

[CA]


Voter Registration by Driver’s License
Proposition 202
Election:
General

1982

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.1%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
An initiative for voter registration by driver’s license; relating to elections and qualified voters; providing an alternative form of voter registration; permitting persons applying for driver’s licenses to register to vote at the same time and place; requiring the secretary of state and director of department of transportationi to bring license application and voter registration forms into substantial conformity.

[S]


Voters on Bond Issue, Qualifications
Unknown2
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.0%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Civil & Constitutional Law | Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Wages and Hours for Employees under Public Works Contracts
Proposition 300
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.7%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
SCR 1001

A concurrent resolution enacting and ordering the submission to the people of a measure relating to wages and hours for employees under public works contracts. An acting relating to public buildings and improvements; providing for removal and prohibition of limits on wages and hours for employees under public works contracts.

[Statutory]


Watercraft License Tax, Boats
Unknown
Election:
General

1966

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.8%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Women Suffrage, Right to Hold Public Office
Proposition 200
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 68.4%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
[CA]


Workman’s Compensation
Proposition 105
Election:
General

1980

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.0%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
HCR 2013

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to labor; prescribing certain options regarding the right to sue for persons eligible for workman’s compensation.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Workmen’s Compensation
Unknown1
Election:
General

1925

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.7%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Workmen’s Compensation
Unknown6
Election:
General

1916

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.9%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Workmen’s Compensation
Unknown15
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.3%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Workmen’s Compensation
Unknown
Election:
General

1936

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44.8%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.


Workmen’s Compensation, Hazardous Employment
Unknown1
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 32.1%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Your Right to Vote By Mail Act
Proposition 205
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 28.9%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



Proposition 205 would require every state, county and local election to be conducted by mail-in ballots, while allowing an absolute minimum number of countywide polling places to be used as well. Each registered voter would automatically be mailed a ballot not fewer than 15 days before the election, along with a pre-paid, stamped envelope for the return of the voted ballot. All ballots sent to voters would be by non-forwardable mail, with address correction requested. Voters would be instructed to return their ballots no later than the close of the election on election day.



Proposition 205 would require elections officials to maintain only the absolute minimum number of polling places, each of which would be open to any voter in the county, instead of being limited to voters in that election precinct. These countywide polling places could be located in election offices or other locations, other than school buildings. Existing provisions for voting by mail and on-site early voting remain unchanged.



Proposition 205 would repeal the existing requirement to mail sample ballots to voters.



FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT



State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal impact of certain ballot measures. Each household with a registered voter currently receives a sample ballot prior to state, county and local elections. These sample ballots may not be used for voting. Proposition 205 eliminates the requirement to provide sample ballots to households and instead requires mailing a regular ballot to each registered voter. As the sample ballot mailing is a state cost, elimination of that requirement may save the state approximately $1.7 million in election years. Since counties and local governments would have to mail regular ballots to each individual registered voter, their mailing costs are projected to be higher than the current cost of mailing the sample ballot to households. The counties and local governments, however, may reduce some of their other expenses. The counties and local governments are currently responsible for the cost of polling places. Since Proposition 205 would require an absolute minimum number of polling places, county and local government may experience savings depending on the revised number of polling places. The net fiscal impact on county and local governments is difficult to determine in advance and will depend, at least in part, on their higher costs to mail ballots to registered voters compared to the savings from a reduced number of polling places.

[Statutory]


$(document).ready(function () {

var selectAllStates = $(‘#dnn_ctr78525_BallotMeasuresDB_ckBxAllStates’);
selectAllStates.click(function () {
$(“#dnn_ctr78525_BallotMeasuresDB_ckBxStates input[type=’checkbox’]”).attr(‘checked’, selectAllStates.is(‘:checked’));
});

$(“#btnClearAllStates”).click(function () {
$(“#dnn_ctr78525_BallotMeasuresDB_ckBxStates input[type=’checkbox’]”).attr(‘checked’, false);
selectAllStates.removeAttr(‘checked’);
});

var statesClick = $(‘#dnn_ctr78525_BallotMeasuresDB_ckBxStates’);
statesClick.click(function () {
selectAllStates.removeAttr(‘checked’);
});

var selectAllTopics = $(‘#dnn_ctr78525_BallotMeasuresDB_ckBxAllTopics’);
selectAllTopics.click(function () {
$(“#dnn_ctr78525_BallotMeasuresDB_ckBxTopics input[type=’checkbox’]”).attr(‘checked’, selectAllTopics.is(‘:checked’));
});

$(“#btnClearAllTopics”).click(function () {
$(“#dnn_ctr78525_BallotMeasuresDB_ckBxTopics input[type=’checkbox’]”).attr(‘checked’, false);
selectAllTopics.removeAttr(‘checked’);
});

var topicsClick = $(‘#dnn_ctr78525_BallotMeasuresDB_ckBxTopics’);
topicsClick.click(function () {
selectAllTopics.removeAttr(‘checked’);
});

$(“.clickForSummary”).click(function () {
$(this).nextAll(‘div[class=”summary”]’).eq(0).slideToggle(100);
});
$(“#btnShowAllSummary”).click(function () {
$(“.summary”).show();
return false;
});
$(“#btnHideAllSummary”).click(function () {
$(“.summary”).hide();
return false;
});

});