Election 2008: Proposition roundup

Voters block raises for lawmakers

Arizona voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly defeated a ballot proposition that would have given state lawmakers their first pay raise since 1998.

Proposition 300, which carried a recommendation that lawmaker pay be increased from $24,000 to $30,000, was losing by a two-to-one margin.

Bruce Merrill, a retired Arizona State University professor who directs the Cronkite/Eight (KAET-TV) poll, said the economy wasn't the only factor behind the outcome.

"It's on the ballot every single election, and it hasn't passed in years and years," Merrill said.

Also defeated was Proposition 201 which would have required developers to provide a 10-year warranty on all new homes and give buyers some additional rights if problems developed. It was financed by the Sheet Metal Workers Union.

But homebuilders, funding the opposition, countered that the proposal would encourage people to sue rather than try to work out their problems through mediation.

Voters also refused to throw a new barrier in the path of many future initiatives.

Under the terms of Proposition 105, ballot measures which imposed new taxes, or new spending requirements on government or even private companies or individuals, would have been approved only if they got the votes of a majority of those actually registered. By contrast, the constitution now requires only a simple majority of those who actually voted on the measure.

And voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot proposition Tuesday that will amend Arizona's Constitution to bar state or local governments from adding a tax on the sale or transfer of homes, farms and other real property.

A well-funded effort led by real estate agents contended that Proposition 100 would prevent double taxation of property owners, who already pay property taxes.

"The passage of Prop. 100 is a victory for Arizona taxpayers," said Tom Jenney, Arizona director for Americans for Prosperity, a conservative association that advocates for taxpayers.

A proposal to amend Arizona's Constitution to forbid any law that would restrict a person's right to choose and pay directly for medical care remains too close

With about 99.1 percent of precincts reporting, Proposition 101 was losing by the narrowest of margins, just over 2,000 vote. Ten precincts in Maricopa County and 10 in Pima County had not reported as of this morning. With thousands of early and provisional ballots still to be counted, it could be several days before results are known.

Supporters said Proposition 101, put forward by two Phoenix-area surgeons, would prevent government interference with individual health choices. That would happen, supporters said, if the state adopted a system providing mandatory universal health care.

Opponents said the proposition was poorly worded, would open the door to litigation and could cost $2 billion or more by unraveling the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state's Medicaid system.

Proponents, which included conservative anti-tax groups, say the measure is needed to guard against the possibility of mandatory, single-payer universal health care.

Gov. Janet Napolitano, hospitals and business groups argued that the amendment could increase costs and leave thousands of Arizonans uninsured.

State health care amendment vote too close to call

A proposal to amend Arizona's Constitution to forbid any law that would restrict a person's right to choose and pay directly for medical care remains too close

With about 99.1 percent of precincts reporting, Proposition 101 was losing by the narrowest of margins, just over 2,000 vote. Ten precincts in Maricopa County and 10 in Pima County had not reported as of this morning. With thousands of early and provisional ballots still to be counted, it could be several days before results are known.

Supporters said Proposition 101, put forward by two Phoenix-area surgeons, would prevent government interference with individual health choices. That would happen, supporters said, if the state adopted a system providing mandatory universal health care.

Opponents said the proposition was poorly worded, would open the door to litigation and could cost $2 billion or more by unraveling the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state's Medicaid system.

Proponents, which included conservative anti-tax groups, say the measure is needed to guard against the possibility of mandatory, single-payer universal health care.

Gov. Janet Napolitano, hospitals and business groups argued that the amendment could increase costs and leave thousands of Arizonans uninsured.

Amendment to ban gay marriage heads to victory

A new strategy - and more money - has apparently given supporters of a ban on gay marriage the victory that eluded them in 2006.

Preliminary results show the measure has the backing of more than 56 percent of voters. Strong support in Maricopa County - and most of the rest of the state - overcame the narrow vote against Proposition 102 in Pima County. That lead exists even with Pima County voting narrowly against it.

Two years ago the measure that backers placed on the ballot sought not only to outlaw same-sex marriage but also to bar any law that recognized civil unions. That proposal also would have banned governments from providing benefits such as health insurance to the domestic partners of their employees.

It was narrowly defeated.

This year the proponents of Proposition 102 decided to narrow their focus, sticking simply to the issue of who can marry.

"The goal was to make the proposal really clear," said Kelly Molique, a spokeswoman for the pro-102 campaign.

She said that, in turn, led to the other key difference between the 2006 and 2008 races: money.

In 2006, foes outspent proponents. This year backers have built a war chest in excess of $7.6 million, relying heavily on contributions of $10,000 or more from individual families.

The two committees opposing the measure have collected less than 10 percent of that.

And the Center for Arizona Policy, which bills itself as promoting "family values," has its own "get out the vote."

Payday loan stores lose right to continue operating

Voters have apparently decided they don't want to keep payday loans legal in Arizona.

In one of the most expensive campaigns in state history, the lenders sought approval of Proposition 200 to permanently protect their right to operate in Arizona - at least until some other ballot measure changes that.

The lenders had collected more than $14.6 million. But it falls short of the successful $21.1 million campaign by Indian tribes in 2002 to get the exclusive right to operate casinos in Arizona.

State law caps allowable interest at 36 percent a year. In 2000, however, lawmakers agreed to create a special exemption for payday lenders. These companies provide cash for a check they know is not good, agreeing to hold it for up to two weeks at fees up to $17.84 per $100 borrowed, up to $500.

That exemption expires July 1, 2010. Lenders went to the ballot after lawmakers refused to extend that. The defeat of Proposition 200 will require lenders to live under that 36 percent limit. It's far short of the more than 450 percent that the current fees compute to, and the 391 percent cap offered in Proposition 200.

Defeat does not mean the immediate closure of payday loan stores. Industry lobbyists could still try to convince lawmakers between now and July 1, 2010, to allow them to continue to operate.

Adjustment to employer sanctions law fails

Voters soundly rejected an effort to loosen some key provisions in Arizona's employer sanctions law.

In unofficial returns late Tuesday, Proposition 202 was losing by about a 60-40 margin.

Proposition 202 had the same penalties as the state statute which took effect in January. Firms can have their state licenses to do business suspended for up to 10 days for knowingly hiring undocumented workers; a second offense within three years puts the company out of business.

But backers of Proposition 202 billed the measure as getting tough on companies that knowingly hire undocumented workers.

They cited provisions which allow the criminal prosecution of employers who purposely take false IDs. "It's disappointing,'' said pro-202 spokesman Garrick Taylor. But Taylor said he did not know whether voters rejected the measure because they did not buy the claim that the initiative actually would tighten up laws against illegal immigration.

Opponents noted, though, that many of the elements of the initiative would make it more difficult to prosecute employers than under the current law, including a requirement to show the company had "actual knowledge" the employee was in this country illegally.