PROP. 100: Curb real estate tax in state

GREG LINDSAY

Cronkite News Service

PHOENIX - Supporters of a ballot proposition that would prohibit state and local governments in Arizona from adding a tax on sales of homes, farms and other real property say it would spare citizens from double taxation.

Opponents say Proposition 100 would unnecessarily restrict the ability of governments to determine the best way to provide for the state's rapid growth.

As of 2004, 35 states and the District of Columbia imposed a tax on the transfer of real property, producing about $7 billion, according to a report by the Washington, D.C.-based Federation of Tax Administrators. In all but seven states and the District of Columbia, the tax was 1 percent or less. In some states, such taxes are imposed at the local level.

The proposition was put on the ballot by a group calling itself the Protect Our Homes Coalition. The group's primary financial sponsors are real estate agents, according to records filed with the Arizona Secretary of State's Office.

Steve Roman, a spokesman for the Protect Our Homes Coalition, said Arizonans should be protected from ever facing such a tax because they already pay property taxes. He said real estate agents are leading the effort because they are intimately aware of the impact such a tax would have on keeping property affordable.

"This is clearly taking something off the table," Roman said. "If the government is looking to build revenue, don't put it on the backs of property owners; they are already paying taxes."

John Wright, president of Arizona Education Association, said the proposition would stifle governments' ability to discuss potential tax changes.

"It is an abuse of the Constitution; that's what the Constitution is there for," Wright said. "It protects our right as citizens to discuss these issues."

Sandy Bahr, conservation outreach director of the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter, said her group opposes Proposition 100 because it could wind up costing tax revenue that could be used for important projects such as conservation programs. She noted that Florida has used its real estate transfer tax to preserve land.

"Cutting off this source, and then putting it in the Constitution, is ridiculous," she said.

Joe Sigg, director of government relations for the Arizona Farm Bureau, said citizens are having a conversation about the need for such a tax by voting on the proposition.

"Our position is that we just need to close the debate on an additional property tax on agriculture," he said. "It's a pocketbook issue; real property issues drop straight to our bottom line."

PROP. 101: Future of health care programs

DEANNA DENT

Cronkite News Service

PHOENIX - Voters will decide Nov. 4 whether to forbid laws that would restrict the ability of citizens to choose doctors, treatment plans or health plans.

Supporters say Proposition 101 is needed to prevent a state-run universal health care system that they say would take away patient choice.

Opponents contend the measure carries vague language that could be interpreted by the courts in a way that costs the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, which provides care for low-income residents, hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

A group calling itself Medical Choice for Arizona introduced the measure, dubbing it the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act. Dr. Eric Novack and Dr. Jeffrey Singer, both Phoenix surgeons, put forward the measure.

"It is absolutely essential for people to remain in control of their health and health care decisions," Novack said.

The proposition would amend the state Constitution to prevent future laws restricting an individual's or entity's choice of private health care or their right to pay directly for medical services.

Political strategist Jaime Molera, who serves as spokesman for the opposition, said the proposition's vague language could lead to expensive problems.

"The simple answer is that this is a very poorly written initiative and would have significant - and some would consider dire - consequences for Arizona's health system," Molera said.

Molera said the measure would have an indirect affect on AHCCCS because the program assigns physicians who then decide what treatments a user can receive and what specialists he or she can visit. He said this could be interpreted by courts as inhibiting an individual patient's right to choose, which Anthony Rodgers, the director of AHCCCS, has said could be costly for the state.

While saying he wasn't taking sides on the issue, Rodgers issued an open letter to taxpayers saying a court ruling based on Proposition 101 could force AHCCCS to switch from a managed-care model to fee-for-service model, which he said could cost the state $1 billion a year.

Novack, the co-sponsor, said that argument is unjustified.

"AHCCCS is not affected because it is a voluntary program, people join it by choice and just like anyone who joins a private health insurance plan, either as a patient or a provider, when you choose something you are subject to the restrictions," Novack said.

PROP. 102: Constitution defines marriage as between 1 man, 1 woman

HOWARD FISCHER

CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES

More Arizonans support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages than are against it, according to a new statewide poll.

But Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, who is leading the opposition to Proposition 102, said Tuesday that the results suit her just fine.

"We're winning," said Sinema, basing her conclusion on the fact that the survey by KAET-TV (Channel 8), the Valley's PBS affiliate, shows that 49 percent of those asked support the measure. "In order to win, you need 50 percent plus one."

At this point, though, only 42 percent said they intend to vote against the measure to amend the state constitution to define marriage in Arizona as solely between one man and one woman. The rest are undecided.

A split among the undecided could push the measure over the top. So could a situation where those who are undecided simply do not vote for the measure.

A similar measure on the ballot two years ago was narrowly defeated, but this campaign differs in two significant ways.

First, that 2006 measure would have not only banned same-sex marriages, but also made it illegal for governments to recognize civil unions or provide benefits to the domestic partners of their employees.

Second, supporters of that measure were outspent by foes. At this point, backers of Proposition 102 have raised more than $3.5 million, as opposed to less than $100,000 reported by opponents.

Sinema said opponents will begin running TV commercials next week.

Kelly Molique, spokeswoman for the pro 102 campaign, said she is confident support for the measure will increase by election day.

The statewide telephone poll of 976 registered voters, conducted between Sept. 25 and 28, has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

In a separate query, pollster Bruce Merrill found that 63 percent of those surveyed said they intend to support Proposition 202. That measure proposes its own standards for when an employer can be punished for knowingly hiring undocumented workers.

The question does not point out that approval of that measure actually would repeal Arizona's more stringent employer sanctions law, which took effect Jan. 1.

Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, architect of that law, called the poll results "somewhat alarming."

"It will undo everything we've done," he said.

PROP. 105: Vote tallies would include all registered voters in Arizona to raise taxes

STAFF REPORT

Supporters of Proposition 105 call it the "Majority rule - Let the people decide" initiative.

But opponents say the constitutional amendment would actually change how votes are tallied in traditional elections that attempt to raise or impose a tax or fee by counting people who don't vote as opponents to the measure.

In a nutshell, the amendment, if passed, would require a majority of all Arizona registered voters to pass an initiative instead of the traditional 50 percent, plus one of those who cast a ballot.

The change, from a majority of those who vote to a majority of the registered voters, changes election math in a fundamental way.

Two years ago, Proposition 203, which increased the tax on a pack of cigarettes by 80 cents, passed handily 987,347 to 523,070. But if Prop. 105 had been in effect it would have failed - despite 65 percent of those casting a ballot being in favor - because when all registered voters are counted, not just those who go to the polls, passage would have required 1,334,201 "yes" votes.

Supporters say it is a way to combat special interests that pour money into initiatives that result in higher taxes or fees being passed by a small number of voters, not a true majority of the people in the state.

They also point to a 1992 initiative that required lawmakers to muster a two-thrids majority to pass a tax increase, which has prevented any new taxes for 16 years. They say that Prop. 105 is a similar safeguard and would prevent a small number of voters from passing a tax on the entire state or an industry.

Opponents say that in an election with a 49 percent turnout, even if 100 percent of the people who go to the polls voted "yes" for an initiative, it would fail because of those who stayed home.

Opponents also say that it gives weight to voters who have died or moved out of state by counting them as opponents to a tax of fee initiative.

Sam Coppersmith, a former congressman, said that instead of being called "Let the people decide," Prop. 105 should be called "Let the non-voters decide."

Opponents to the constitutional amendment include the Humane Society and the League of Women Voters.

Supporters include the Arizona Chapter of Americans for Prosperity and the Arizona Farm Bureau.

Financial support, over $1 million so far, has mostly come from businesses owned or controlled by Jason LeVeck, including MJKL Enterprises, which owns a chain of restaurant franchises in Arizona that includes Carl's Jr. A large number of beer and wine distributors have also donated support to the proposition.

Opponents, who have raised around $100,000, include United Firefighters of Arizona, The National Education Association and the Arizona School Board Association.