SLP Badge Transparent.png
Read the
State Legislative Tracker
New edition available now!




Arizona Compensation of State Elective and Judicial Officers Amendment, Proposition 102 (1982)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on
Salaries of
Government Officials
Salaries of government officials.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Arizona Constitution
Flag of Arizona.png
Preamble
Articles
1234566.178910111213141516171819202122252627282930
Arizona Compensation of State Elective and Judicial Officers Amendment, also known as Proposition 102, was on the 1982 election ballot in Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. It was defeated.[1]

Election results

Proposition 102
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No497,88874.8%
Yes 167,556 25.2%
These results are from the Arizona elections department.

Text of measure

Official title

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona relating to compensation of state elective and judicial officers; prescribing exemptions from proscription against increasing compensation during a term of office; clarifying the application of certain procedures to justices and judges of courts of record.[1][2]

Descriptive title

Amending Arizona Constitution, Article IV, Part 2, Section 17 and Article V, Section 13, relating to compensation of state elective and judicial officers; allowing salary increases during term of office; permits Legislative salary recommendations to be treated as other elected officials.

A " yes" vote shall have the effect of permitting the Salary Commission to review all state elective, judicial and legislative salaries and recommend changes effective during term of office.

A " no" vote shall have the effect of not allowing state elective and judicial officials salary adjustments during term of office and requiring voter approval of legislative salary adjustments.[1][2]

Summary

Below is the summary of this measure from the Legislative Council:

Currently the salaries of public officers cannot be increased or decreased during their term of office, Every four years state elected officials, including judges, have their salaries reviewed by a five-member commission. The commission may then recommend to the Governor a salary change for these elected officials. The Governor must then give to the Legislature his recommendations for a salary change for these elected officials, The Governor's salary recommendations go into effect automatically unless either the State House of Representatives or the State Senate votes against the salary change or agrees to change the figures" Under current law this salary commission procedure applies to all elected state officials, including judges, but does not apply to legislators. Under current law, every four years the State Salary Commission recommends a salary change for legislators. However, this recommendation goes directly to the voters and is not effective unless the voters approve it.

Passage of Proposition 102 would do two things:

1. It would allow the salaries of those elected officials subject to commission review to be increased yearly or at any other time during their terms of office,

2. It would end the requirement that legislative salary increases be submitted to the voters for their approval. Instead, the commission's recommendation for a legislative salary increase would be treated the same as recommended salary increases for other state elected officials,[1][2]

Full text

The full text of the legislation proposed by this proposition can be found here.


BallotMeasureFinal badge.png
This historical ballot measure article requires the text of the measure to be added to the page.

Support

The Legislative Council arguments in favor of this measure were:

Because of this state's tremendous population and economic growth, our legislators have been kept increasingly busy with not only regular arid special sessions involving highly complex issues but also with other committees and activities while they are out of session. They must also keep informed about the changing issues of our time and communicate with and provide assistance to the people they represent. Regular review of legislative salaries and appropriate adjustments are necessary to pay legislators for the long and difficult hours they devote to the interests of the people of our state. It is especially important for Arizona to support a Legislature where average citizens and not just the rich can afford to serve as legislators.

It is important to involve persons from all walks of life and economic classes in our state legislative process. We cannot expect legislative service from a good cross section of our citizens without reasonable pay. In addition, passage of Proposition 102 would place the procedure to adjust legislative salaries on the same footing as the procedure by which other salaries of state elected officers are adjusted. Authorizing increases to the salaries of state elected and judicial officers during their terms of office, in most cases four years, is the only effective way to keep pace with inflation and allow qualified persons regardless of their wealth or financial situation to serve our state.[1][2]

Other arguments in favor of this measure can be found here.

Opposition

The Legislative Council arguments against this measure were:

If Proposition 102 passes, it will no longer be required that the voters of Arizona approve changes in the salaries of legislators. The current requirement for voter approval acts as an important check by the people of this state on the salaries of the State Legislature and encourages legislators to be responsive to the people they represent Under this proposition it will be easier for legislative salaries to be increased. Since the Legislature may alter salary recommendations made by the Commission on Salaries for State Elective and Judicial Officers and the Governor, it may increase the salaries of its members beyond those recommendations. The Legislature may provide for another procedure for altering legislative salaries which does not rely on or consider the study or recommendations of the commission.

The members of the United States Congress set their own salaries which are excessive, and there are frequent attempts to raise them. Passage of this proposition would give legislators in this state a free rein to abuse the public trust by continually raising their salaries in the same manner as Congress. Legislators should run for office because they want to serve the public, not for the salary they will receive. Since Proposition 102 allows the compensation of any state elected or judicial officer subject to the Commission on Salaries to be increased or diminished during his term of office, a special privilege is created for state elected or judicial officers which does not extend to a city or county or any other public officer.[1][2]

Other arguments in opposition to this measure can be found here.

See also

External links

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Arizona Secretary of State 1982 Voter Pamphlet, accessed January 3, 2014
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.