Does your state lean blue or lean red? Check out our new report, highlighting partisan control of state government from 1992-2013.
Arizona Term Limits, Proposition 107 (1992)
|
The Arizona Term Limits Amendment, also known as Proposition 107, was a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot in Arizona, which was approved in the statewide election on November 3, 1992.
- This proposed amendment to the Constitution of Arizona limits the number of consecutive term limits for U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, State Legislators, State Executive Offices, Corporation Commissioners and Mine Inspectors.[1]
Election results
| Arizona Proposition 107 (1992) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| 1,026,830 | 74.21% | |||
| No | 356,799 | 25.79% | ||
Official results via: State of Arizona Official Canvass
Text of measure
The text of the ballot read:
| “ | OFFICIAL TITLE Proposed amendment to the constitution by the initiative DESCRIPTIVE TITLE Amending the Arizona Constitution to limit the number of consecutive terms begining in January 1993 for: |
” |
Constitutional changes
|
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Arizona: The following amendments to the Constitution of the State of Arizona, amending Article VII to add§ 18, amending Article IV, Part 2, § 21 and Article V, § 1 A, deleting Article V, § 10, amending Article XV § 1 and amending Article XIX are proposed to become valid when approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon and on proclamation of the governor: |
Note: Deleted language is crossed out, added language is capitalized.
Support
Those in support of the amendment include:[1]
- Arizona Public Interest Research Group
- Enough! Repeal the Tax Increase
Arguments in favor of the amendment include:[1]
- Today's politicians have lost touch with the people and need to be limited in order for them not to be solely focused on their own re-election.
- Term limits will allow new people with new ideas to take office and come up with innovative solutions.
Opposition
Arguments in opposition of the amendment include:[1]
- The turnover rate for politicians in Arizona is already high, so not allowing for one to vote for whom they believe is the best choice infringes on the right to vote.
- Not allowing senior and experienced members of legislature will hurt the people of Arizona long term.
See also
External links
References
| |||||||
State of Arizona Phoenix (capital) | |
|---|---|
| Ballot measures |
List of Arizona ballot measures | Local measures | School bond issues | Ballot measure laws | Initiative laws | History of I&R | Campaign Finance Requirements | |
| Government |
Arizona State Constitution | House of Representatives | Senate | Joint Legislative Budget Committee | Legislative Council | Auditor General | |
| State executive officers |
Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Treasurer | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Director of Insurance | Director of Agriculture | Commissioner of Lands | Director of Labor | Chairman of Corporation Commission | State Mine Inspector | |
| Elections |
Recalls | Vote fraud | |
| Judiciary |
Arizona Supreme Court | Arizona Court of Appeals | Arizona General Jurisdiction Court | Arizona Limited Jurisdiction Courts | Judicial selection in Arizona | Judicial News | |
| Transparency topics |
Public Records Law | Transparency Checklist | Government corruption reports | Transparency Legislation | Open Records procedures | Transparency Advocates | State budget | Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations | |
| Divisions |
State |
List of counties |
List of Cities |
List of school districts | |