By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings
Mike Bryan wrote a post on this very topic a few months ago, but he invited the other writers here to weigh in on the subject. Here is my contribution.
At last count (and subject to change, depending on court rulings), Arizona voters will be considering nine ballot questions in November. While I've pretty much decided how I'm going to vote ("no" on all questions except for Proposition 204), a look at each question is merited. I'll be taking a position on each measure and stating why I hold that position. However, I urge all readers to read and study the propositions for themselves and cast their votes based on what they think is best for the state.
First, some resources –
The League of Women Voters of Arizona ballot proposition guide is here – English/Spanish.
The Arizona Secretary of State's webpage for its proposition publicity pamphlet is here.
Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona offers a thorough and well-written guide here.
The first two are neutral (though cynic that I am, if I was only discussing the AZSOS' guide, the word "ostensibly" would be used to modify "neutral"); Mike Bryan openly takes positions on the measures. I disagree with a couple of those positions, but on those questions, there isn't a "good" position, just a "less bad" one.
On to the questions –
Proposition 114 – An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature on a mostly party-line vote (one D in the House voted for it). Ostensibly about "protecting" the victims of crimes from being sued by criminals, but this is an all but nonexistent problem. Really about undermining the protections in the AZ Constitution that bar the lege from doing anything to reduce the right of Arizonans to recover damages for death or injury. Undermining those protections is something that big business and other wealthy interests have been working on
for years. They want the state's court system to be more like the state's political system – mostly available to the highest bidder. Like Mike Bryan, I am voting "No".
Proposition 115 – An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature on a mostly party-line vote (eight Ds in the House voted for it). Makes changes to the selection process for judges. The process is currently one with safeguards that work to protect the independence of the judiciary. This measure seeks to whittle away at that independence. It also seeks to indirectly undermine the independence of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission by turning the Commission on Appellate Court Appointment, which screens candidates for the AIRC, into a partisan star chamber. Like Mike Bryan, I am voting "No".
Proposition 116 – An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature. While the Rs in the lege marketed this as a tax cut for small businesses (effectively marketed, I should say, since every D who voted on this in the lege supported this one. They should have read the fine print before casting their votes), it's actually a huge gift to big business that will serve to undermine the fiscal stability of the state and every county in the state. I'm voting "No".
Proposition 117 – An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature. For purposes of property tax valuations, would cap increases in valuations of property to 5% over the previous year's valuation. Sounds OK, even pretty good, to anyone who lived through the massive real estate bubble of the last decade where house prices, and values, rose dramatically, often resulting in seriously higher property taxes for homeowners who didn't even participate in the 'flipping for fun and (paper) profit" scams. Well, sounds OK until you realize that this is a sop to the anti-government and anti-society whackjobs who want to impose a harsh property tax cap on Arizona. The bursting of the real estate bubble has solved this "problem" already. I'm voting "No".
Proposition 118 – An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature. This measure seeks to change the way that distributions of revenue from the Permanent State Land Endowment Fund are handled. When AZ became a state, a large portion of the state's land area was placed in trust and revenues from sales of that land go into the Fund and are dedicated to certain beneficiaries (like schools, hospitals, and prisons). This measure is intended to provide short term increases in revenue for those beneficiaries so that the lege can justify providing long-term tax cuts to their wealthy friends. I'm voting "No".
Proposition 119 – An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature. This is another attempt to modify the state constitution to facilitate the exchange of state trust lands with other parcels in order to protect military facilities from encroaching development. This one has been around before and has been defeated each time because most people (including me) don't trust the legislature. Past efforts were vague and rife with opportunity for mischief. Supposedly this has been improved and is supported by a number of environmental and business groups, as well as many Democrats. I still don't trust the lege and am going to vote "No".
Proposition 120 – An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature. This one is a sop to the batshit crazy crowd. It declares that Arizona has absolute sovereignty over all land, water, and air in AZ, except under certain specific and limited circumstances. It's a way of saying that Arizona doesn't have to follow federal laws and regulations. This has been tried before. It resulted in the Civil War. I'm voting "No".
Proposition 121 – An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was placed on the ballot by initiative petition. Would change the state's elections to a "top two" primary system where all candidates for an office would face off in the primary, and the top two vote-getters in the primary would advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. This one is opposed by the major political parties, the minor political parties, and many advocacy groups. It is supported by a number of big business lobbying groups, as well as "moderate" (read: "pro big business") Republicans. The supporters claim that this will result in more moderate candidates running for, and winning, office, even though there is no evidence to that effect from the states that have already tried this (LA, WA, and now CA). The opponents are worried that this could lead to situations where in a district that leans heavily partisan in one direction or another that there could be a number of candidates of that party who split the vote in the primary, leading to a district being represented by someone who isn't supported by a majority, or even true plurality, of the voters in that district. I'm not sure that this one will past muster with the US Department of Justice, which under the Voting Rights Act, must "pre-clear" all changes to laws regarding AZ's elections.
If adopted, this measure would effectively disenfranchise all minor party and independent candidates and voters, because none of them have the resources necessary to compete in this sort of "jungle primary."
The Republicans tried hard to keep this one away from the voters and off of the ballot, ultimately to no avail. I think that it should be on the ballot for the voters to consider. And to defeat. I'm voting "No".
Proposition 204 – A proposed statute that was placed on the ballot by initiative petition. It would permanently extend the 1% increase in the state sales tax that the voters passed in 2010, intended to buttress funding for education. I despise sales taxes as they are truly the most regressive of all taxes, and Arizona already relies too heavily on sales taxes for revenue. However, I view voting for this as the "less bad" of the available options.
One of the reasons cited by AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal (R) in opposition to the measure is that it includes a large chunk of education-related statutes in the measure, meaning that said sections of law become covered under the Voter Protection Act, which in turn means that the lege is all but completely barred from changing said statutes.
He, other Republicans, and to be fair, some Democrats, think that it is unwise to handcuff the legislature like that; personally, I think that it is high time that we begin micromanaging the lege.
As regular readers know, voter apathy is one of my pet peeves.
Until more people actually pay attention to the conduct of their elected officials, we will continue to have a legislature with a majority of members who feel nothing but contempt for the majority of Arizonans.
Right now, I don't know a way to reduce the kind of pervasive apathy that is contributing to Arizona's decline into "national punchline" status.
I do know that we can, however, do things to minimize the damage that the legislature can wreak upon the state.
Voting for Proposition 204 is one step toward doing that.
I am pleased that there are people willing to put in the hard effort it takes to identify the positive and negative points of ballot initiatives. I generally vote against all initiatives unless I can be certain that the change is absolutely needed.
As far as Proposition 204 is concerned I must agree with my 2010 opponent for state treasurer (and current state treasurer) Doug Ducey. He correctly states that the state government has a $1.3 billion dollar operating balance and that if the seven different funds that this $1 billion dollar a year tax burden benefits were in need that government education advocates could make a pitch to the legislature for funding.
http://www.azcheckbook.com/
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Sales_Tax_Renewal_Amendment,_Proposition_204_%282012%29
I can agree with the sentiments above that education is valuable. The question is how valuable is the currently provided government education and will the purchase price of that education be worth the cost? I admit to being doubtful.
PROP 117 – THE LARGEST PROPERTY TAX INCREASE FOR ARIZONA HOMEOWNERS BUT THAT’S OK LARGE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TAXES WILL GO DOWN….
This is simply a residential tax hike that the Arizona Tax Research Assoc (ATRA), a professional lobbying group that represents only the largest taxpayers in the State (http://www.arizonatax.org/committees/board-of-directors) is trying to pull off. ATRA does not represent homeowners, small business, retirees, etc.
While its Director and the author of Prop 117 kevin McCarthy claims that the measure will hold down property taxes for homeowners, the measure is actually a tax shift from commercial property to residential properties this is well documented in many independent studies that are listed below and not one study supports ATRA’s contention that this will help homeowners.
In fact, until three years ago, ATRA always stated that Prop 117 will create inequities and lead to increased tax rates and taxes. This is of course until ATRA’s Board, which includes tax attorneys and property tax agents that represent the largest commercial property owners in the State, Intel, Century Link, Boeing, SW Gas, AT&T, and their accountants (Deloitte, Ernst & Young, etc.) decided that they could no longer reduce the commercial assessment ratios and needed a new avenue to shift taxes from large commercial taxpayers to homeowners. Here’s their past contentions… Please see page 6-8 from ATRA’s 2005 Outlook for the truth about Caps. http://www.powershow.com/view/2cac1-OGUyO/ATRA_OUTLOOK_CONFERENCE_flash_ppt_presentation. For years, Kevin McCarthy always preached that… a property tax valuation cap does not cap your taxes…it leads to: 1) increase in tax rates, 2) creates inequities in tax between similarly situated properties, and 3) harms school, city and county bonding capabilities.
Also, take a look at who wrote and supported Prop 117 (known as SCR 1025 at the legislature): When this went through the legislature, not one small business, home owner, City, town or retiree supported the bill (at the bottom of this post is a list of those that signed in). In fact Property Tax professionals and tax attorney’s that represent small business and homeowners and are not on the board of ATRA (Mr. Jeff Nolan, Mr. Daniel Garrett, Mr. Chris Glidewell and Mr. James Nearhood) have come forward stating that Prop 117 will lower commercial taxes and increase the taxes on our homes.
Please be informed……ATRA (the Prop’s author) is a Lobbying group with 7 registered lobbyists. Please take the time and understand what you are truly voting for –Higher residential taxes and lower commercial taxes.
Don’t take my word for it, here are studies by the International Assessor’s organization (IAAO), The Lincoln Land Institute, (IAAO), Professor of Economics at Cal State and head of tax at University Cal Davis, as well as Kevin’s counterpart in Minnesota Mark Havemann. The following are links to many of the papers written by the leading national experts :
LESSONS FROM 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE – LINCOLN ISTITUTE
http://www.taad.org/Property%20Tax%20Assessment%20Limits–Lessons%20from%2030%20Years%20of%20Experience.pdf
International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) Organization – Various Studies
http://www.iaao.org/sitePages.cfm?Page=355
Taxable Value Increase Limits – Fables and Fallacies
http://www.iaao.org/uploads/Dornfest.pdf
To Cap or Not to Cap That is The Question. (Not The Answer)
The following are those who signed in for the bill. As you will notice, they are almost all now on the Board of ATRA. A complete record of names is available online at the State Legislative site at the end of the committee recording (azleg.gov 03/05/2012).
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL: Freeport –
McMoran Lyn White ( also Chairperson ATRA)
Intel’s Jason Bagley (also Vice Chairman ATRA)
Century Link’s Mike DiMaria (also 2nd Vice Chair ATRA)
APS’ Steve Barela (also a Board Member of ATRA)
Boeing’s Jeff Dodson ((also a Board Member of ATRA)
SW Gas’ Richard Foreman (also a Board Member of ATRA)
Tim Lawless ( NAIOP Exec Director and Board Member ATRA).
Great analysis.
Go Craig! An excellent explanation of the ballot measures — some of which I haven’t looked at in any detail — and a good antidote to what Mike Bryan said about Props. 121 and 204. Mike is a thoughtful, intelligent guy, but he’s wrong on these two Propositions, and you got it right. No on the “Top Two” Prop. 121 and Yes on the “Stop the lege from cutting education still more, then put more funding for our children’s education on top of that” Prop. 204.
I’m suspicious of any ballot initiative originating from the Legislature, but especially this most recent session.
I don’t normally like to discuss how or who I will vote for, but I have to say that, in this case, I pretty much came to the same conclusion as you — no on all but 204.