Taxpayer resources used in ballot campaigns

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Backers of Arizona Proposition 101 and California Proposition 2 have alleged that their opponents are illicitly using tax-funded government resources to campaign against their measures.

  • Arizona 101. 101's supporters filed a lawsuit October 3 in Maricopa County Superior Court asking a judge to block the director of the state's indigent care system, known as AHCCCS, from campaigning against it. They claim that Anthony Rodgers, director of AHCCCS, is illegally using his position and state resources to urge the defeat of Proposition 101. Rogers sent a three-page memo in September to editorial page writers and others saying that Proposition 101 could have "unintended consequences" and change how AHCCCS has to operate.[1]
  • California Proposition 2. Prop 2 backers believe that the University of California-Davis might have been funded by agriculture interests to produce a study saying that Prop 2 would hurt California's farms and raise the price of eggs.[2]
  • Massachusetts Marijuana Initiative. The Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, backers of the initiative, allege in a lawsuit that opposing district attorneys used public funds to post and house a statement urging voters to reject the decriminalization initiative on its Web site, a violation of Massachusetts election law, which prohibits public officials from using public resources to advocate for or against a ballot initiative. The statement on the state run Massachusetts District Attorneys Association website says that if the question is approved, "any person may carry and use marijuana at any time."[3]