Arizona Crime Victims Protection Act Amendment, Proposition 114 (2012)
|Constitution:||Article II, Section 31|
|Referred by:||Arizona State Legislature|
- See also: 2012 ballot measure election results
The following are official election results:
|Arizona Proposition 114|
Results via the Arizona Secretary of State.
Text of measure
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.
Analysis by Legislative Council
The following is an analysis of the measure by the Legislative Council, found in the state voter guide:
|“|| 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.
|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.
- 1 Election results
- 2 Text of measure
- 3 Support
- 4 Opposition
- 5 Campaign contributions
- 6 Media endorsements
- 7 Path to the ballot
- 8 Timeline
- 9 See also
- 10 External links
- 11 References
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.
The following were supporters of the measure:
- State Senator Russell Pearce was the first measure sponsor listed on the official overview of the bill.
- 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)."
- 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."
The following were arguments submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State:
- "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.
- 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.
- 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."
No arguments against the measure were submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State for the state voter guide.
No campaign contributions were made in favor or opposition of the measure, according to state election websites.
- 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."
- 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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
The following is a timeline of events surrounding the measure:
|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.|
- Arizona 2012 ballot measures
- 2012 ballot measures
- Arizona Legislature
- List of Arizona ballot measures
- Arizona Legislature, "SCR1020", Retrieved April 25, 2011
- Arizona Legislature, "Bill Overview:SCR 1020", Retrieved April 25, 2011
- Arizona Secretary of State, "Prop. 114", Retrieved October 18, 2012
- Text of Article 18, Section 6
- In Maricopa, "Steve Smith: Ballot proposition recommendations", October 15, 2012
- Arizona Conservative, "Vote YES on Proposition 114", Retrieved October 17, 2012
- Arizona Daily Sun, "Making the ballot, Prop 114 would limit civil suits over criminal actions", September 13, 2012
- Arizona Capitol Times, "Proposition 114 would bar felons’ lawsuits against victims", October 8, 2012
- Arizona Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance", Retrieved November 27, 2012
- Yuma Sun, "Proposition 114 offers balance in lawsuit issue", October 1, 2012
- Arizona Central, "Our position on 4 items", October 12, 2012