Propositions and Initiatives on the ballot: What do they really mean?

Ansari beat Teran by 39 votes. Never say your vote does not count.

Central Phoenix Inez Casiano NOW with Arizona NOW PAC is hosting a four-part series of virtual forums about the upcoming elections. June was on contested legislative districts, July was on school board candidates, and August was on the initiatives and referenda on the ballot. Below is a summary of my presentation on that.

September will be on the down ballot measures including corporation commission, water board, justices of the peace, and judges. The link to register for the forum on Monday, September 23 at 6 pm is here: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZYqc-Cpqz0vG9PRQ_gDWqyuuwxiceORaiEy

The election in November has 13 ballot measures. Often, they are written in legalese and sometimes are titled the opposite of what they mean. This discourages voters from even tackling them. Unfortunately, that leaves the most partisan and extreme voters to decide the fates of the rest of us. CPIC NOW had a virtual forum on August 26 explaining the issues outlined here and several other organizations have issued voter guides with their recommendations and explanations.

First, what is the difference between referenda and initiatives?  Referenda are changes the legislature referred to the ballot. Initiatives are changes the citizens put on the ballot.

There are also two different categories.  Constitutional changes: A constitutional change is more serious in that it becomes the overriding law and principle and cannot be easily changed. For initiatives, it takes more signatures for a constitutional change. They are numbered in the 100s. 

Statutory changes:  For statutes, they can be changed every year by the legislature, but citizen passed initiatives cannot be changed by the legislature except under very limited circumstance because we also passed an initiative prohibiting the legislature from changing or nullifying a citizen’s initiative which they did in the 90s. Statutory changes are numbered in the 300s.

Constitutional Provisions

Proposition 133:  Partisan primaries for partisan offices

This measure would require partisan primary elections for partisan offices.  It is an attempt to stop the national movement toward reforming our election system so there is more competition and a wider selection.  It would prohibit ranked choice and open primaries that threaten party control and gerrymandering.  It prohibits cities from experimenting with other options and violates home rule. To require partisan primaries helps the most extremist candidates because the hardliners are the ones who vote in primaries.  Independents can only vote by picking a party, so it decreases their participation, and independents are one-third of the Arizona electorate. 

Proposition 134:  Changing voter initiative signature requirements

This measure is a blatant attempt to reduce or eliminate the citizens right in the state Constitution to pass initiatives.  Now, to get an initiative on the ballot for a statutory change requires signatures from 10% of the state population based on the last election for governor.  For constitutional changes, it requires 15%.  This proposition would change that to requiring that percentage from EACH legislative district.  All 30 of them.  That essentially gives all the power to one outlier district perhaps with a tiny population that could unilaterally stop an initiative that 850,000 people signed.  It would entrench minority rule over the majority.  The legislature does not have to pass a measure with votes from every district, so why should the people?

Proposition 135: Declaring emergencies

This measure would take power from the executive branch and give it to the legislative branch.  Now legislators can question a state-of-emergency declaration after 120 days.  This would allow them to question it after 30 days and with only 1/3^rd of the legislators (the “freedom caucus” sic) demanding a special session.  This allows conspiracy theorists to run riot over attempts to deal with COVID, drought, climate emergencies etc.

This would make it very difficult to manage emergencies and recovery work.  The legislature can’t agree on what day it is let alone how to move forward in an emergency. Yes, we have had very bad governors too but then it’s getting rid of one person not dozens.

Proposition 136:  Challenging initiatives’ constitutionality

This is another attempt to eliminate the citizens right to make law with initiatives.  Now, initiatives can be challenged before getting on the ballot but only on procedural issues i.e. are the signatures valid, does it cover one topic, is the wording correct.  This measure would allow one person in the state to challenge an initiative based on alleged constitutional violations. So one person could challenge the 380,000 citizens who signed the Abortion Access Act petition.  Also, it allows challenges only to initiatives proposed by citizens not referenda proposed by the legislature. The legislature is often told that the measure they are passing will be constitutionality, but they pass it anyhow.  Citizens then pay the cost of the inevitable lawsuits.

Proposition 137: End term limits for state superior and supreme court justices 

While some object to the Arizona judicial merit selection system, most agree it is a better way than either elections or lifetime appointments.  This proposition would end that to give judges lifetime appointments. Now, judges are selected by a judicial review commission and then the governor appoints.  That judge is then up for retention by the citizens after 2-4 years.  In the past, most judges were never removed by voters because no one knew about them.  But in the last election, three were removed and it shocked and scared the judicial bench and the legislature.  In this upcoming election, two are targeted, Bolick and King, who voted for the 1846 abortion ban. 

They call us biased for removing judges based on their decisions. But a Republican governor appointed two federalist judges to our supreme court who didn’t want them deliberately to push the court toward the political right. 

The proposition would also add two legislators to the judicial review commission.   That is bias and an interference of the legislative branch in the business of the judicial branch.  

Judges would remain on the bench “during good behavior.”  The only behavior that would get them on the ballot for retention is if they are convicted of a felony, fraud, bankruptcy, or foreclosure.  Why wouldn’t a judge convicted of a felony or fraud just be removed?  Period.  Said judge should not go on any ballot.  Secondly where is the mention of judicial ethics and sexual abuse of staff?  The Supreme Court (sic) has shown us the problem of having no judicial ethics in place and the Ninth circuit (where AZ is) has had several scandals of judges sexually abusing clerks and being removed.  

The other kicker is that should this pass, it would apply retroactively so that even if we vote Bolick and King out, the citizens voice would be voided.  Also troublesome is that upon the written request of one legislator, the judicial review commission would have to investigate a judge.  So while the legislature does not want citizens to have a voice in judicial selection, they want legislators to be able to attack a judge for her decision.  This has already happened with legislators attacking Judge Hannah for making decisions against the election deniers. This is a blatant attempt to control the judiciary and shut out citizens voices.

Proposition 138: Reducing wages for tipped workers

This is one of those propositions named the opposite of what it will do – like the Blue Sky Law that allowed air pollution. If approved, this measure would allow tipped workers to be paid 25% less than the minimum wage if income from tips passed a certain threshold.

Let’s look at some figures to see what this really means. The minimum wage in AZ is $14.35/hour. Right now, tipped workers can be paid $3.00/hour less on the assumption they are making $3.00/hour tips. So their base pay is $11.35.

This proposition would change that to being paid 25% less.  25% of $14.35 is $3.59. Subtract that from $14.35 and tipped workers base pay would be $10.76.  You don’t need to be a math genius to see that $10.76 is less than $11.35.  

But there are contingencies.  The employer must show by averaged charged (not paid) tips over some period of time (TDB by employer) that employees received at least $2 over minimum wage.  Recall that charged tips also lose 1.5-3% for merchant fees and most people pay 20% tip not 25%.  So if tipped workers received on average, according to the employer’s calculations, $16.35, which is $2.00 over minimum wage, they could be paid $10.76 base pay. 

The restaurant industry wants this bill.  Their absurd argument in court was that paying tipped workers less would pay them more because it will make restaurants sustainable, and they won’t have to fire workers.  So you can keep your job only if you agree to work for less.  No, I don’t think that is how it works.  These people need to unionize. Many countries don’t allow tipped workers at all – they pay them a livable wage.

Another issue is that this would be put into the state Constitution – not just a law.  Under what thinking would you name in your Constitution a certain group of workers who can be paid less?  This is not the kind of thing you put into a constitution that sets the foundation and principles for the state. Equality and the welfare of the people should be the principle, not profits.

The other problem is wage theft that is a $50 billion a year crime in which employers scam their employees.  Allowing the employer to determine the average over a time period the employer picks (the most lucrative) would open the door to all kinds of shenanigans.

Statutory Provisions

Proposition 311:  Criminal Conviction Fee for First Responder Death Financial Benefit Measure

This is another example of a deliberately misnamed provision that does not do what they are trying to trick you into thinking it does.  The proposition establishes a $20 fee on every conviction for a criminal offense.  Out of the money collected, $250,000 would go to the spouse or children of a first responder killed in the line of duty. Once the fund exceeds $2 million, the state legislature could appropriate the funds to other law enforcement uses such as training, equipment and other uses.  

Again, let’s go to some numbers to understand the real motivation behind this. In Arizona, the average number of convictions statewide is 96,328. At $20/conviction that equals $1,926,560. So in one year, the legislature has almost $2 million.  Above $2 million, they can use the monies for other law enforcement support.  This proposition is NOT about helping families, it’s about funding law enforcement. 

In 2024, Arizona has so far only three fallen officers:  one from accidental gun fire, one from a car accident, and one from gun fire. Only the last might be eligible for $250,000.  That would leave $1,676,560 after just one year. Every year thereafter, the fund would top $2 million, and the legislature would divert the monies into supporting law enforcement. 

Families of officers killed in the line of duty already receive significant benefits. They receive $422,035 from the Federal Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program. In addition, state law already gives them benefits i.e. 100% of the persons pension if there is a child and 80% if no minor children. In addition, they get educational and other benefits to the spouse and children.  

I sat on the Task Force for Fair Justice for several years and one resounding recommendation was to stop adding surcharges and fees onto criminal convictions. They penalize people of color and the poor who are more likely to be convicted due to bias, and the families of those convicted already pay an average of $13,000 a year for fines, fees, visitation, supplemental food, phone calls etc.  

This proposition would also not allow judges to waive the fees in appropriate cases.  Keep in mind that the $20 is not coming from the person who did the harm to that officer, but to everyone convicted for anything in AZ including shoplifting, petty theft, and smoking a marijuana cigarette.  State policy should be to lower crime not to increase convictions so the state can raise money for law enforcement to arrest more and increase convictions.  

This proposition is based on a myth that being a first responder is the most dangerous job. Logging is the most dangerous job. My father was a logger and broke his leg twice. Next to logging as a dangerous occupation is farming. My uncle died from being caught in moving machinery. Next to that is forestry, fishing and hunting (especially deep-sea fishing), aircraft pilot and flight engineer, roofers, structural iron and steel workers, miners, and trash and recycling collectors. All of these jobs are vital for our economy and lifestyle.  Law enforcement is number 10 on the list. The Department of Justice estimates that of 16,000 officers injured on the job, only 53 were feloniously killed by civilians. Studies have also shown that officers are more likely to suffer injuries when they use force (Henriquez, 1999; Smith, 2002; Alpert, 2004). 

The Department of Justice three-year study of the Phoenix police department leaves no doubt about their violent and racist culture. It is really an affront to ask the convicted who are the most subject to our racist criminal justice system to pay for benefits for the police who are an occupying force in Black neighborhoods and proven by the DOJ report to be racist and violent. This proposition that started as SCR1006 passed on March 7, 2023 is in fact called “Back the Blue Act.” Its intent is to increase law enforcement not help families.

Proposition 312: Property tax refunds for public nuisance

If this measure is approved, property owners could apply for tax refunds if they believe that their city is not enforcing laws that target unhoused people. Republicans are trying to force cities to take punitive approaches to the homeless that we know don’t work.  It will not solve the homelessness crisis or make homeless encampments go away. It violates local control and favors property owners over human rights. We know affordable housing is a problem nationwide and salaries have not kept up with rent increases. The number of elderly homeless who have worked their whole life only to now find themselves on the street is disgraceful.

The property owners don’t need to submit a claim, only a request for a refund. The burden is then on the city to show why they should not get a refund. If the property owner loses, s/he cannot be charged with attorney fees or court costs.  This gives an incentive for every cruel person to file such a claim because they will never have to pay a price for their selfish actions.

Proposition 313: Life imprisonment for child sex trafficking

Here is another referendum that sounds like something you might support but when you look at the details, it’s not. This proposed law would require life in prison for anyone convicted of child sex trafficking. But victims of sex trafficking could also be locked away forever after being pulled into a vicious cycle of coercing others.

Federal sex trafficking law says that victims should never be prosecuted for crimes they committed while trafficked. Arizona has refused to change its law to comply with this. Legislators in both the House and Senate warned lawmakers that victims and teenagers would be harmed by this proposition and asked them to put in exemptions. They refused. 

We already have harsh prison sentences for anyone convicted of sex trafficking. Harsh sentences do not solve the problem or stop the crime. They do however fill the pockets of the for-profit prison industry.  

The legislature refuses to take the steps necessary to actually prevent sex trafficking such as school counselors; mental health counseling; full day kindergarten; better services to families; and better housing, education, and wages.  Instead lock them up and throw away the key is the extent of their thinking.  

Proposition 314: The “Secure the Border Act”

Little needs to be said about this bill because we have seen this show before with SB1070.  It didn’t end well for AZ and yet here we are, with the legislature trying for a replay.  The bill would make it a state crime to illegally cross borders (now only a federal crime) and grant power to state and local law enforcement to enforce it resulting in rampant racial profiling as occurred under SB1070.  Even more, the officials would have complete immunity from whatever they did to the people they stop.  We have seen this movie before too especially at the border patrol and it only opens the door wide for violence and abuse.

One reason the proposition should have been thrown out by the court is that it also makes it a severe crime to knowingly sell fentanyl that results in a person’s death. However it is an affirmative defense if the fentanyl was made in the U.S. There are so many things wrong with this it’s hard to know where to start. Fentanyl is not coming in through the backpacks of the people illegally crossing the border. It’s coming in large shipping containers, planes, and the vehicles of Americans coming back from Mexico.  

Secondly, if you cared about people who were killed by fentanyl why would it matter if they were killed from fentanyl made in Mexico or fentanyl made in the U.S.? They are just as dead.  This plainly illustrates the hypocrisy and the racist aim of the supporters.  

Further, the Arizona Constitution requires any referenda put on the ballot by the legislature to have a funding source. This does not. Estimates are up to $3.2 billion. Yet no funding is attached for law enforcement, courts, or prisons.  If local jails cannot hold the people, the bill requires the Department of Corrections to do it.  DOC estimated it would cost them $250,000 they don’t have.  It would, however, be money in the pockets of for-profit prisons.

No one wants this.  Not prosecutors, not border sheriffs, not law enforcement, not DOC, not the people.  Yet the extremists in the legislature put it on the ballot to hope to fool enough people.

Proposition 315: Preventing regulations that cost more than $500,000

This comes from the MAGA attack on what they imagine to be the “deep state.”  This would ban any state agency-issued regulations estimated to cost more than $500,000 within five years and require they be approved by the state legislature. 

This is another bill to take power from the executive branch who oversees agencies and give it to the legislative branch. It is a violation of the separation of powers. The extremists are attacking the “regulatory state” but in fact in a large and complex society, we need regulation especially of health and safety measures.  We need regulation of clean water, pesticides, safe food, disease control, and of institutions like children’s homes where sex abuse has run rampant and elderly homes where not only are comatose women raped but others are left in terrible condition.  

What this does is take the decision-making power out of the hands of experts in the agencies and gives it to legislators who will be making scientific decisions based on political bias. It’s an attack on science and guaranteed to be a disaster.  

Initiatives

In addition to the 11 referenda that the legislature put on the ballot, citizens managed to put two initiatives on the ballot.  

Proposition 139: Abortion Access Act 

It establishes a constitutional right to abortion, prohibiting state intervention before fetal viability.  Basically it is putting Roe v. Wade in the state constitution.  We know that ensuring access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services is a cornerstone of public health. Access to contraception, abortion services, and sexual health education are critical and result in fewer abortions.  But their goal is not to protect mothers, babies, or even fetuses.  If they wanted to do that, they would provide the necessary health and family care and support. The goal is to control women.  

The act needs to be in the constitution so that a future legislature can’t change it willy nilly as it has been doing by making it more and more difficult and expensive for women to get medical care.  It also is a fundamental value and principle – women should control their own bodies, make their own decisions, and receive appropriate health care. 

The news has been full of stories of the horrors faced by women in states where abortion is prohibited – bleeding out in hospital waiting rooms, having miscarriages in bathrooms, nearly dying of sepsis while going to a place to get treatment.  No more.

Proposition 140: Eliminate Partisan Primaries Amendment.

The court has one more ruling to make on this case after a Sept. 3 hearing.  By that time, the ballots will be printed.  So if that challenge wins, then the results won’t be counted.

This proposition would eliminate partisan primaries and replace them with a system where individuals may vote for the candidate of their choice, regardless of the party affiliation of the voter or the candidate. It would place all primary candidates on the same ballot, regardless of political party. 

The amendment would allow for the state legislature to choose how many candidates would advance from the primary to the general election. For one-winner races, it would provide for two to five candidates to advance to the general election. If three or more candidates advance in one-winner races, ranked-choice voting will be used in the general election. If the legislature does not choose the advancing number, the secretary of state does.

Much angst has been churned about our electoral system and its lack of real competition, the unfairness of the electoral college, the cost of elections with dark money and big money, and the power of incumbency. What’s lacking is what to do about it.  

Many ideas have been tossed about and some tried like this open primary, top-two, and ranked choice voting.  We have had public financed elections so no outside money at all but that went the way of the dinosaur with the Citizens Unitedcase. Initial research has shown that those places piloting ranked choice and open primaries have shown no difference so far. 

The measure empowers independent voters who are about a third of Arizona voters. Supporters argue that the present system empowers parties and extremists with only the most motivated who show up to vote in the primary making the final choice. We have seen that in AZ but in the last primary, we did see one far-right legislator get defeated though the other guy is not far from her on the scale. But both Republican and Democratic parties tried to keep the referenda off the ballot so it’s clear the parties think it will diminish their power.

Some people argue that when a district leans heavily one way, the race is over in the primary because the top two will both be of that party.  But that is true now. We have few really competitive districts.

The big issue is that the legislature chooses how many candidates go forward from the primary into the general election.  If they choose only twice the number of seats available (one seat, 2 go forward; two seats, 4 go forward etc.) then they can prevent the rest of the state from ever having ranked choice or other options of voting methods because the initiative applies to all elections.  Only if the legislature (or secretary of state if they fail) chooses more than double the number of seats, will the result be selected by ranked choice.  Once they choose, it can’t be changed for six years.

Many groups are suggesting voting no on this proposition for that reason. Everyone realizes something must be done but disagree on what.  One must start somewhere.  I’m still not decided.