Difference between revisions of "Arizona Crime Victims Protection Act Amendment, Proposition 114 (2012)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
  referred  = [[Arizona State Legislature]]|
 
  referred  = [[Arizona State Legislature]]|
 
  topic = [[:Category:Law enforcement|Law enforcement]]|
 
  topic = [[:Category:Law enforcement|Law enforcement]]|
  status = On the ballot|
+
  status = Approved {{approved}}|
}}The '''Arizona Crime Victims Protection Act Amendment''', also known as '''Proposition 114''', is on the [[Arizona 2012 ballot measures|November 6, 2012 general election]] ballot in the state of [[Arizona]] as a {{lrcafull}}.  The measure would prohibit crime victims from being subject to a claim for damages for causing harm to a person if that person is killed or injured when engaging in, or fleeing after, a felony crime. It was introduced during [[Dates of 2011 state legislative sessions|2011 state legislative session]], where its formal title was [http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/scr1020p.htm&Session_ID=102 SCR 1020].<ref name=text> [http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/scr1020p.htm&Session_ID=102 ''Arizona Legislature'', "SCR1020", Retrieved April 25, 2011]</ref><ref name=texts> [http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/scr1020o.asp&Session_ID=102 ''Arizona Legislature'', "Bill Overview:SCR 1020", Retrieved April 25, 2011]</ref>
+
}}The '''Arizona Crime Victims Protection Act Amendment''', also known as '''Proposition 114''', was on the [[Arizona 2012 ballot measures|November 6, 2012 general election]] ballot in the state of [[Arizona]] as a {{lrcafull}}, where it was '''approved'''.  The measure prohibited crime victims from being subject to a claim for damages for causing harm to a person if that person is killed or injured when engaging in, or fleeing after, a felony crime. It was introduced during [[Dates of 2011 state legislative sessions|2011 state legislative session]], where its formal title was [http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/scr1020p.htm&Session_ID=102 SCR 1020].<ref name=text> [http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/scr1020p.htm&Session_ID=102 ''Arizona Legislature'', "SCR1020", Retrieved April 25, 2011]</ref><ref name=texts> [http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/scr1020o.asp&Session_ID=102 ''Arizona Legislature'', "Bill Overview:SCR 1020", Retrieved April 25, 2011]</ref>
  
 
==Election results==
 
==Election results==
 
:: ''See also: [[2012 ballot measure election results]]''
 
:: ''See also: [[2012 ballot measure election results]]''
The following are unofficial election results:
+
The following are '''official''' election results:
  
 
{{Short outcome
 
{{Short outcome
 
| title = Arizona Proposition 114
 
| title = Arizona Proposition 114
| yes = 1,1527,35
+
| yes = 1,664,473
| yespct = 80
+
| yespct = 79.94
| no = 287,912
+
| no = 417,431
| nopct = 20
+
| nopct = 20.06
 
| image = {{approved}}
 
| image = {{approved}}
 
| unresolved =  
 
| unresolved =  
Line 25: Line 25:
 
[[Category:Approved, general, 2012]]
 
[[Category:Approved, general, 2012]]
  
'''Precinct totals are not final and have not yet been reported'''
+
Results via the [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2012/General/Canvass2012GE.pdf Arizona Secretary of State].
 
+
Results via the [http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/results/election.php Arizona Republic].
+
 
+
 
==Text of measure==
 
==Text of measure==
 
===Ballot language===
 
===Ballot language===
The ballot language of the measure reads as follows:  
+
The ballot language of the measure read as follows:  
  
 
{{quote|''A "yes" vote shall have the effect of protecting crime victims from having to pay damages to a person who was injured while that person committed or attempted to commit a felony against the victim''
 
{{quote|''A "yes" vote shall have the effect of protecting crime victims from having to pay damages to a person who was injured while that person committed or attempted to commit a felony against the victim''
  
 
A "no" vote shall have the effect of keeping current constitutional law related to liability for damages.}}
 
A "no" vote shall have the effect of keeping current constitutional law related to liability for damages.}}
 +
{{tnr}}
 
===Analysis by Legislative Council===
 
===Analysis by Legislative Council===
 
The following is an analysis of the measure by the Legislative Council, found in the state voter guide:<ref name=doc/>
 
The following is an analysis of the measure by the Legislative Council, found in the state voter guide:<ref name=doc/>
Line 46: Line 44:
  
 
===Constitutional changes===
 
===Constitutional changes===
[[Article 2, Arizona Constitution#Section 31|Article II, section 31]] and [[Article 18, Arizona Constitution#Section 6|Article XVIII, section 6 of]] of the [[Arizona Constitution]] would be amended to read as follows:<ref name=text/>
+
[[Article 2, Arizona Constitution#Section 31|Article II, section 31]] and [[Article 18, Arizona Constitution#Section 6|Article XVIII, section 6 of]] of the [[Arizona Constitution]] was amended to read as follows:<ref name=text/>
 
{| style="width:60%; background:#FFFDD0; margin-top:.1em; border:.5px solid #cccccc; solid;"
 
{| style="width:60%; background:#FFFDD0; margin-top:.1em; border:.5px solid #cccccc; solid;"
 
|color:#000"|  
 
|color:#000"|  
Line 58: Line 56:
 
The right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated, and the amount recovered shall not be subject to any statutory limitation, except that a crime victim is not subject to a claim for damages by a person who is harmed while the person is attempting to engage in, engaging in or fleeing after having engaged in or attempted to engage in conduct that is classified as a felony offense.
 
The right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated, and the amount recovered shall not be subject to any statutory limitation, except that a crime victim is not subject to a claim for damages by a person who is harmed while the person is attempting to engage in, engaging in or fleeing after having engaged in or attempted to engage in conduct that is classified as a felony offense.
 
|}
 
|}
{{tnr}}
+
 
The current sections reads as follows:
+
The previous section read as follows:
 
{| style="width:60%; background:#FFFDD0; margin-top:.1em; border:.5px solid #cccccc; solid;"
 
{| style="width:60%; background:#FFFDD0; margin-top:.1em; border:.5px solid #cccccc; solid;"
 
|color:#000"|  
 
|color:#000"|  
Line 80: Line 78:
 
==Support==
 
==Support==
 
===Supporters===
 
===Supporters===
The following are supporters of the measure:
+
The following were supporters of the measure:
  
* [[Arizona State Senate|State Senator]] [[Russell Pearce]] is the first measure sponsor listed on the official overview of the bill.<ref name=texts/>
+
* [[Arizona State Senate|State Senator]] [[Russell Pearce]] was the first measure sponsor listed on the official overview of the bill.<ref name=texts/>
 
* [[Arizona State Senate|State Senator]] [[Steve Smith]] stated, "Quite simply put, this is a great way to ensure that a criminal is never able to sue the very person they victimized (yes, you would be surprised that this can and does happen)."<ref> [http://www.inmaricopa.com/Article/2012/10/15/sen-steve-smith-ballott-prosition-recommendations-state-house-district-11 ''In Maricopa'', "Steve Smith: Ballot proposition recommendations", October 15, 2012]</ref>
 
* [[Arizona State Senate|State Senator]] [[Steve Smith]] stated, "Quite simply put, this is a great way to ensure that a criminal is never able to sue the very person they victimized (yes, you would be surprised that this can and does happen)."<ref> [http://www.inmaricopa.com/Article/2012/10/15/sen-steve-smith-ballott-prosition-recommendations-state-house-district-11 ''In Maricopa'', "Steve Smith: Ballot proposition recommendations", October 15, 2012]</ref>
 
* According to a letter written by Dave Kopp and John Wentling, President and Vice President of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, "The Arizona Constitution protects an unrestricted right to sue for damages, and, for the most part, that’s a good thing. Unfortunately, that protection also allows a criminal to sue you if he gets hurt while committing a crime."<ref> [http://azconservative.org/2012/10/03/vote-yes-on-proposition-114/ ''Arizona Conservative'', "Vote YES on Proposition 114", Retrieved October 17, 2012]</ref>
 
* According to a letter written by Dave Kopp and John Wentling, President and Vice President of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, "The Arizona Constitution protects an unrestricted right to sue for damages, and, for the most part, that’s a good thing. Unfortunately, that protection also allows a criminal to sue you if he gets hurt while committing a crime."<ref> [http://azconservative.org/2012/10/03/vote-yes-on-proposition-114/ ''Arizona Conservative'', "Vote YES on Proposition 114", Retrieved October 17, 2012]</ref>
 
===Arguments===
 
===Arguments===
The following are arguments submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State:<ref name=doc> [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2012/Info/PubPamphlet/Sun_Sounds/english/prop114.htm#F ''Arizona Secretary of State'', "Prop. 114", Retrieved October 18, 2012]</ref>
+
The following were arguments submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State:<ref name=doc> [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2012/Info/PubPamphlet/Sun_Sounds/english/prop114.htm#F ''Arizona Secretary of State'', "Prop. 114", Retrieved October 18, 2012]</ref>
  
 
* "Here is a simple and good idea. Let's stop the bad guys from suing their victims. Do you believe a criminal should be able to sue you, after assaulting you, robbing you, and/or raping you? An unrestricted constitutional "right to sue" exists, which even permits criminals to sue those they victimize." A person's home is their castle", however our Arizona Constitution allows anyone to sue for any reason and offers little protection to a property owner who defends his family, or his property from violent criminals (home invasion, burglary, arson, etc.). For example, a burglar breaks into your home and your dog bites him, you can be successfully sued for any injury sustained by the burglar!"
 
* "Here is a simple and good idea. Let's stop the bad guys from suing their victims. Do you believe a criminal should be able to sue you, after assaulting you, robbing you, and/or raping you? An unrestricted constitutional "right to sue" exists, which even permits criminals to sue those they victimize." A person's home is their castle", however our Arizona Constitution allows anyone to sue for any reason and offers little protection to a property owner who defends his family, or his property from violent criminals (home invasion, burglary, arson, etc.). For example, a burglar breaks into your home and your dog bites him, you can be successfully sued for any injury sustained by the burglar!"
Line 95: Line 93:
  
 
==Opposition==
 
==Opposition==
* According to [[Arizona House of Representatives|House Majority Leader]] [[Chad Campbell]], speaking on behalf of legislators who oppose the measure, "A lot of us have concerns. Obviously, I don't think anybody committing a crime should be able to sue their victim." However, Campbell said that the broad wording of the measure could lead to situations where civil immunity would be granted to a person who shoots an alleged criminal in the back.<ref> [http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/making-the-ballot-prop-would-limit-civil-suits-over-criminal/article_3124da1e-5d1d-5608-857f-fc95ef670938.html ''Arizona Daily Sun'', "Making the ballot, Prop 114 would limit civil suits over criminal actions", September 13, 2012]</ref>
+
* According to [[Arizona House of Representatives|House Majority Leader]] [[Chad Campbell]], speaking on behalf of legislators who opposed the measure, "A lot of us have concerns. Obviously, I don't think anybody committing a crime should be able to sue their victim." However, Campbell said that the broad wording of the measure could have lead to situations where civil immunity would be granted to a person who shoots an alleged criminal in the back.<ref> [http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/making-the-ballot-prop-would-limit-civil-suits-over-criminal/article_3124da1e-5d1d-5608-857f-fc95ef670938.html ''Arizona Daily Sun'', "Making the ballot, Prop 114 would limit civil suits over criminal actions", September 13, 2012]</ref>
* [[Arizona House of Representatives|State Rep. Ruben Gallego]] stated that the measure is unnecessary, saying, "There’s a reason we have our form of judicial system. You have to give some respect to the jury system and to our judges. They’re going to be able to determine most of the time whether someone deserves money or not."<ref> [http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/10/08/arizona-proposition-114-would-bar-felons-lawsuits-against-victims/ ''Arizona Capitol Times'', "Proposition 114 would bar felons’ lawsuits against victims", October 8, 2012]</ref>
+
* [[Arizona House of Representatives|State Rep. Ruben Gallego]] stated that the measure was unnecessary, saying, "There’s a reason we have our form of judicial system. You have to give some respect to the jury system and to our judges. They’re going to be able to determine most of the time whether someone deserves money or not."<ref> [http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/10/08/arizona-proposition-114-would-bar-felons-lawsuits-against-victims/ ''Arizona Capitol Times'', "Proposition 114 would bar felons’ lawsuits against victims", October 8, 2012]</ref>
 
===Arguments===
 
===Arguments===
 
''No arguments against the measure were submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State for the state voter guide.''<ref name=doc/>
 
''No arguments against the measure were submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State for the state voter guide.''<ref name=doc/>
 +
==Campaign contributions==
 +
 +
''No campaign contributions were made in favor or opposition of the measure, according to state election websites.''<ref> [http://www.azsos.gov/cfs/BallotMeasureSummarySearch.aspx ''Arizona Secretary of State'', "Campaign Finance", Retrieved November 27, 2012]</ref>
 +
 
==Media endorsements==
 
==Media endorsements==
 
: ''See also: [[Endorsements of Arizona ballot measures, 2012]]''
 
: ''See also: [[Endorsements of Arizona ballot measures, 2012]]''
Line 125: Line 127:
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
{{AOrtiz}}
+
{{submit a link}}
 
* [[Arizona 2012 ballot measures]]
 
* [[Arizona 2012 ballot measures]]
 
* [[2012 ballot measures]]
 
* [[2012 ballot measures]]
Line 141: Line 143:
 
[[Category:Certified, law enforcement, 2012]]
 
[[Category:Certified, law enforcement, 2012]]
 
{{Certrefca2012}}
 
{{Certrefca2012}}
{{arizona stub}}
 

Revision as of 13:29, 1 August 2013

Proposition 114
Flag of Arizona.png
Click here for the latest news on U.S. ballot measures
Quick stats
Type:Constitutional amendment
Constitution:Article II, Section 31
Referred by:Arizona State Legislature
Topic:Law enforcement
Status:Approved Approveda
The Arizona Crime Victims Protection Act Amendment, also known as Proposition 114, was on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot in the state of Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure prohibited crime victims from being subject to a claim for damages for causing harm to a person if that person is killed or injured when engaging in, or fleeing after, a felony crime. It was introduced during 2011 state legislative session, where its formal title was SCR 1020.[1][2]

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results

The following are official election results:

Arizona Proposition 114
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 1,664,473 79.94%
No417,43120.06%

Results via the Arizona Secretary of State.

Text of measure

Ballot language

The ballot language of the measure read as follows:

A "yes" vote shall have the effect of protecting crime victims from having to pay damages to a person who was injured while that person committed or attempted to commit a felony against the victim

A "no" vote shall have the effect of keeping current constitutional law related to liability for damages.[3]

Analysis by Legislative Council

The following is an analysis of the measure by the Legislative Council, found in the state voter guide:[4]

Proposition 114 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that a crime victim is not liable for damages incurred by a person who was harmed while attempting, engaging in or fleeing from conduct that is classified as a felony offense.

Under current law, Article II, section 31 and Article XVIII, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution generally provide that the right to recover for damages for death or injury may not be limited. Proposition 114 would amend these sections of the Arizona Constitution to provide an exception that a crime victim is not subject to a claim for damages by a person who is harmed while attempting to engage in conduct classified as a felony offense, while engaging in conduct classified as a felony offense or while fleeing from such conduct.

Article II, section 2.1 of the Arizona Constitution provides that a "victim" is a person against whom a criminal offense has been committed, or if that person is killed or incapacitated, that person's spouse, parent, child or other lawful representative.[3]

Constitutional changes

Article II, section 31 and Article XVIII, section 6 of of the Arizona Constitution was amended to read as follows:[1]

Article II, Section 31

No law shall be enacted in this state limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person, except that a crime victim is not subject to a claim for damages by a person who is harmed while the person is attempting to engage in, engaging in or fleeing after having engaged in or attempted to engage in conduct that is classified as a felony offense.

Article XVIII, Section 6

The right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated, and the amount recovered shall not be subject to any statutory limitation, except that a crime victim is not subject to a claim for damages by a person who is harmed while the person is attempting to engage in, engaging in or fleeing after having engaged in or attempted to engage in conduct that is classified as a felony offense.

The previous section read as follows:

Text of Article II, Section 31:

Damages for Death or Personal Injuries

No law shall be enacted in this state limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person.

Text of Article XVIII, Section 6:

Recovery of Damages for Injuries

The right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated, and the amount recovered shall not be subject to any statutory limitation.[5]

Support

Supporters

The following were supporters of the measure:

  • State Senator Russell Pearce was the first measure sponsor listed on the official overview of the bill.[2]
  • State Senator Steve Smith stated, "Quite simply put, this is a great way to ensure that a criminal is never able to sue the very person they victimized (yes, you would be surprised that this can and does happen)."[6]
  • According to a letter written by Dave Kopp and John Wentling, President and Vice President of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, "The Arizona Constitution protects an unrestricted right to sue for damages, and, for the most part, that’s a good thing. Unfortunately, that protection also allows a criminal to sue you if he gets hurt while committing a crime."[7]

Arguments

The following were arguments submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State:[4]

  • "Here is a simple and good idea. Let's stop the bad guys from suing their victims. Do you believe a criminal should be able to sue you, after assaulting you, robbing you, and/or raping you? An unrestricted constitutional "right to sue" exists, which even permits criminals to sue those they victimize." A person's home is their castle", however our Arizona Constitution allows anyone to sue for any reason and offers little protection to a property owner who defends his family, or his property from violent criminals (home invasion, burglary, arson, etc.). For example, a burglar breaks into your home and your dog bites him, you can be successfully sued for any injury sustained by the burglar!"
  • "Please vote yes on Proposition 114, the Crime Victims Protection Act, and let's ensure that a criminal is never able to sue the very person they victimized."
Submitted by Russell Pearce, Former President of the Arizona State Senate.

Opposition

  • According to House Majority Leader Chad Campbell, speaking on behalf of legislators who opposed the measure, "A lot of us have concerns. Obviously, I don't think anybody committing a crime should be able to sue their victim." However, Campbell said that the broad wording of the measure could have lead to situations where civil immunity would be granted to a person who shoots an alleged criminal in the back.[8]
  • State Rep. Ruben Gallego stated that the measure was unnecessary, saying, "There’s a reason we have our form of judicial system. You have to give some respect to the jury system and to our judges. They’re going to be able to determine most of the time whether someone deserves money or not."[9]

Arguments

No arguments against the measure were submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State for the state voter guide.[4]

Campaign contributions

No campaign contributions were made in favor or opposition of the measure, according to state election websites.[10]

Media endorsements

See also: Endorsements of Arizona ballot measures, 2012

Support

  • The Yuma Sun stated, "Voters will have to decide if this universal protection of victims is appropriate. There seems to be little opposition and that is understandable. Most people don't want a victim to be vulnerable to a civil lawsuit from a criminal who seriously harms them."[11]

Opposition

  • The Arizona Republic stated, "One day, a criminal indeed may take advantage of Arizona's constitutional provisions protecting a citizen's right to sue. One day, a court conceivably may entertain a claim against some poor robbery victim who righteously blew off the kneecap of the criminal who assaulted him. It is possible. But it hasn't happened yet. And restricting constitutional rights based on theoretical expectations rarely turn out well. Things rarely turn out as we expect them to."[12]

Path to the ballot

A majority vote is required in the Arizona State Legislature to send a constitutional amendment to the ballot. Arizona is one of ten states that allow a referred amendment to go on the ballot after a majority vote in one session of the state's legislature.[2]

Senate

The measure was first read to the Arizona State Senate on January 26, 2011, and was passed to the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committees that same day. The measure was read for the second time on January 27, 2011.[2]

On February 7, 2011, the Judiciary Committee voted 6 to 1 in favor, and the Rules Committee voted in favor on February 14, 2011, allowing the full chamber to review the proposal. A vote tally for the Rules Committee vote was not included on the overview of SCR 1020. Then on February 22, 2011, a final vote took place in the chamber, where the amendment was approved with a vote of 21 to 9, sending it to the Arizona House of Representatives. To see which state senators voted for and against the measure, click here

House of Representatives

After being transmitted to the House, Senate Concurrent Resolution 1020 was first read to the chamber on March 21, 2011, where it was then assigned to the House Judiciary Committee and the House Rules Committee the same day. It was approved by both committees, with the Judiciary Committee approving it on March 24, 2011 with a vote of 6 to 3. Then, on April 4, 2011, the Rules Committee voted 7 to 0 in favor, placing it in front of the full chamber for consideration.[2]

The House voted in favor of placing the proposal on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot on April 12, 2011, with a vote of 40 to 19, transmitting it to the Arizona Secretary of State to be placed on the ballot. To see which state representatives voted for and against the measure, click here.

Timeline

Calendar.png

The following is a timeline of events surrounding the measure:

Event Date Developments
First Reading Jan. 26, 2011 The measure was first read to the Arizona State Senate.
Second Reading Jan. 27, 2011 The measure was read for a second time to the Senate.
Vote Feb. 7, 2011 The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6 to 1 in favor.
Vote Feb 14, 2011 Senate Rules Committee voted in favor of measure.
Vote Feb. 27, 2011 The amendment was approved with a vote of 21 to 9 by the Senate.
First Reading Mar. 21, 2011 Measure first read to House; Judiciary Committee approved with a vote of 6 to 3.
Vote Apr. 14, 2011 House Rules Committee voted 7 to 0 in favor of measure.
Final Vote Apr. 12, 2011 The House voted in favor of placing the proposal on ballot.

See also

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Suggest a link

External links

References