Initiatives & Propositions

This year we have eight state initiatives and constitutional amendments to vote on.  We can summarize pretty simple, vote NO.  The official recommendation of the SaddleBrooke Democrats is to vote NO for all initiatives other than Proposition 300 on which we recommend YES.  We are ambivalent on Proposition 202.

Here are our official recommendations:

Proposition Vote
Prop 100 “Protect our Homes” No New Home Tax NO

Constitutional amendment to forbid future imposition of any tax on property tax sales or transfers. There is no such tax in Arizona.

Backers: AZ Realtors, Homebuilders, and Anti-tax forces.

This is a commercially sponsored constitutional amendment. AZ Realtors paid people to gather signatures and have and are spending money to promote their particular commercial interest. By gaming the initiative system, businesses can gain commercial advantages.

This particular initiative is an amendment. This means that unless reversed by citizen vote, it can not likely be changed by future legislative action even if it become obvious that the new law is detrimental to the public.

There is no tax in Arizona on realty transfers nor is one proposed for the future. This amendment would tie the hands of the legislature or government as relates to future potential ways to enhance state or county revenues. If revenue increases were required the legislature would be required to raise income and or property taxes

Prop 101 Medical Choice for Arizona NO

Constitutional amendment to forbid future establishment of government sponsored health care or third-party payer programs.

Backers: Glendale Surgery Center, NJ Investments Groupp

Opponents: Health care reform proponents, AZ Dem Party

This is a commercially sponsored constitutional amendment with paid petition circulators and commercially paid campaigns for approval.

This particular initiative is an amendment. (See discussion above Prop 100)

This proposition is backed by a Utah based surgical center and a New Jersey company that operates medical franchises. The initiative would forbid the Arizona legislature from adopting state sponsored medical programs or payer systems to save money or enhance public health systems. Should the federal government establish such reforms, then federal law would presumably prevail. But do we really want to forbid the establishment of medical systems to enhance accessibility to health care for the millions that don’t have it?

Prop 102 Marriage Arizona Act Re-Definition NO

Constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriages which are already illegal in AZ.

Backers: Al Melvin, Anti-gay forces.

Opponents: AZ Democratic Party, ACLU

This is a constitutional amendment sponsored by evangelical Christian groups and Republican partisan groups. The Christian groups hope to overcome what they see as evil and the Republicans want to use the issue to turn out their base voters. Pun intended.

Democrats and most moderates believe that everyone should be equal before the law. This would deny tax and civil benefits to gay couples.

Prop 105 No New Tax without 50% Citizen Approval NO

Constitutional amendment to require that more than 50% of eligible voters must approve any proposed tax or spending increase, regardless of voter turnout.

Backers: Neo-conservatives, Anti-tax forces, Alcohol distributors.

Opponents: Long list of public officials and advocacy groups, unions

Another constitutional amendment this one from Neo-Conservatives and anti-tax forces and an array of business interests particularly cigarette companies, alcohol distributors (Cindy McCain) and AZ Realtors who fear they may be targeted for ’sin’ taxes.

This proposal would require that any tax or spending proposal put forth by the initiative process must be voted “Yes” by more than half of the citizens of Arizona, regardless of whether or not they vote. It is likely unconstitutional but it will take years to get it through the courts.

Prop 200 Payday Loan “Reform” Act NO

Initiative sponsored by industry to remove sunset provisions and perpetuate usury in Arizona. Sets revised cap of 400% per year on loans and guarantees industry’s right to sweep borrower’s bank account.

Backers: Payday loan industry; Out of state investors.

Opponents: AZ Democratic Party

This one is pure greed on the part of legalized loan sharks. Couched as “reform” it seeks to perpetuate a situation as the Arizona Legislature seems to be ready to consider outlawing the industry entirely from the state. The part about sweeping bank accounts is especially revolting. The industry is targeting poor retired people as they can sweep away Social Security payments.
Prop 201 Homeowner’s “Bill of Rights” NO

Forces home buyers to purchase a 10 year home warranty insurance policy as part of new home contract.

Backers: Insurance industry, AZ Realtors (receive commissions)

Another “business” initiative, this one is designed to increase the market for home warranty insurance. This initiative essentially requires home builders to bundle into their contract a ten year home warranty insurance policy which they will mark up (take a comission) and pass on to buyers. If buyers wish, they are free to purchase such insurance. Indeed that’s a good idea in the first couple of years of ownership. But ten years is too long a period to be locked into paying an insurance company.
Prop 202 Stop Illegal Hiring ???

Establishes (reduces) penalties on companies that hire illegal immigrants and targets those that pay workers “under the table” Likely very ineffective in practice, actually reduces current employer sanctions.

Backers: Anti-immigrant forces, Wake Up AZ (a business coaliation),

Opponents: Russell Pearce

This is yet another business sponsored initiative that is designed to reduce employer sanctions. In practice the sanction laws are very ineffective and this would only weaken them further. So maybe this is not a big deal. But our committee was stopped from recommending a NO vote by the fact that Russell Pearce, who many regard as a racist, is supporting a NO vote. So we leave the choice to you.
Prop 300 State Legislative Salary Increase YES

Raises legislator’s salaries to $30,000 per year.

Current salary is $24,000 per year; certainly not an attractive wage. On the other hand, there is no evidence that an increase would attract better candidates. However, the low wage does not encourage middle class family people to think about an career as a politician. So with all of this, we felt that the issues deserves a “YES.” The minority opinion was that we should wait until a majority of legislators were Democrats before we approved!
Creative Slice, Green website design from Tucson, AZ