Arizona Lieutenant Governor Amendment, Proposition 111 (2010)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 17:34, 14 August 2012 by JWilliams (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Arizona Constitution
Flag of Arizona.png
The Arizona Lieutenant Governor Amendment, also known as Proposition 111, or SCR 1013, was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in the state of Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. Defeatedd The measure was proposed to change the position of Secretary of State to Lieutenant Governor. The amendment proposed that in an election, each political party's nominee for lieutenant governor would have to run on the same ticket as the nominee for governor.[1]

The measure was proposed by the O'Connor House Project. The project, according to reports, was a yearlong effort that was spearheaded by retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to change the organization and operation of state governments. The measure was referred to the ballot by the Arizona Legislature.[2]

Election results

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

Official election results of the measure follow:

Proposition 111 (Lieutenant Governor)
Defeatedd No951,82059.2%
Yes 655,252 40.8%

Results via the Official Election Canvass of Results from the Arizona Secretary of State's website.

Text of amendment

Ballot title

The ballot title that Arizona voters saw read as follows:[3]

A "yes" vote shall have the effect of changing the name of the office of Secretary of State to the office of Lieutenant Governor. It will also require that each political party's nominees for Governor and Lieutenant Governor run on one ticket and be voted on together in the general election.

A "no" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current office of Secretary of State as a position elected separately from the office of Governor.

Short title

The short title of the measure, according to the Arizona Secretary of State's website, read as follows:[4]

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; amending Article V, Section 1, Constitution of Arizona, as amended by a 1992 initiative measure designated as Ballot Proposition 107; repealing Article V, Section 1, Constitution of Arizona, as amended by 1991 House Concurrent Resolution 2001 designated as Ballot Proposition 100; amending Article V, Sections 6 and 9, Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article V, Constitution of Arizona, by adding Section 13; relating to the Executive Department.

Administration of government on the ballot in 2010
Nevada 2010 ballot measuresUtah 2010 ballot measuresColorado Fetal Personhood, Amendment 62 (2010)New Mexico 2010 ballot measuresArizona 2010 ballot measuresMontana 2010 ballot measuresCalifornia 2010 ballot measuresOregon 2010 ballot measuresWashington 2010 ballot measuresIdaho 2010 ballot measuresOklahoma 2010 ballot measuresKansas 2010 ballot measuresNebraska 2010 ballot measuresSouth Dakota 2010 ballot measuresNorth Dakota 2010 ballot measuresIowa 2010 ballot measuresMissouri 2010 ballot measuresArkansas 2010 ballot measuresLouisiana 2010 ballot measuresAlabama 2010 ballot measuresGeorgia 2010 ballot measuresFlorida 2010 ballot measuresSouth Carolina 2010 ballot measuresIllinois 2010 ballot measuresTennessee 2010 ballot measuresNorth Carolina 2010 ballot measuresIndiana 2010 ballot measuresOhio 2010 ballot measuresMaine 2010 ballot measuresVirginia 2010 ballot measuresMaryland 2010 ballot measuresMaryland 2010 ballot measuresRhode Island 2010 ballot measuresRhode Island 2010 ballot measuresMassachusetts 2010 ballot measuresMichigan 2010 ballot measuresMichigan 2010 ballot measuresAlaska Parental Notification Initiative, Ballot Measure 2 (2010)Hawaii 2010 ballot measuresCertified, administration of government, 2010 Map.png


The summary of the amendment read as follows:[5]

Proposing an amendment to the constitution of Arizona; amending article V, section 1, constitution of Arizona, as amended by a 1992 initiative measure designated as ballot proposition 107; repealing article V, section 1, Constitution of Arizona, as amended by 1991 house concurrent resolution 2001 designated as ballot proposition 100; amending article V, sections 6 and 9, constitution of Arizona; amending article V, Constitution of Arizona, by adding section 13; relating to the executive department.

Constitutional changes

Arizona Lieutenant Governor Amendment (2010), Constitutional changes

The measure was proposed to amend Article V, Section 1 and Article 5, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution.




The following arguments were made for the measure:[8]

  • Supporters stated that the measure would implement "truth in advertising", which would show voters that the lieutenant governor would become governor if the governor left office before their term ended.
  • According to Sam Wercinski, the former state real-estate commissioner, the measure, "makes it clear to voters who is next behind the governor. We know that...people are surprised when the secretary of state becomes governor."[8]
  • The state saw four governors leave office before their term ended, so supporters stated that measure was a need for Arizona, which was one of five states that did not have the position of Lieutenant Governor.



  • Representative Chris Deschene stated at the time that the position of lieutenant governor would have a conflict of interest in elections in the state. Deschene stated, "If we look at a race where there's a sitting lieutenant governor and a governor, and they're both part of the same party, now we have the lieutenant governor administering the election for his boss. I think we failed to look two steps down the line to see what the potential conflicts of interest would be."[8]
  • Linda Turley-Hansen, syndicated columnist and former Phoenix TV anchor, advised a 'no' vote on the measure in an editorial revealing her recommendations for all the propositions on the November ballot.[9]
  • The Pima County Democratic Party recommended a 'no' vote on the measure.[10]
  • State Senator Ron Gould voiced his opposition to the measure.[11]
  • The Tuscon Chamber of Commerce recommended a 'no' vote on the measure in an editorial.[12]
  • Tim Hogan, a lawyer with the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, stated that Prop. 111 was written poorly.[13]


The following arguments were made in opposition to the measure:[8]

  • Opponents of Proposition 111 stated that the measure said that the Lieutenant Governor would be on the same ticket as the Governor in elections. This would hinder the goal of ensuring independent elections, opponents argued.
  • Independent candidates would be negatively affected by the measure, opponents claimed at the time, because it seemed that an independent candidate for lieutenant governor or governor would not be able to join a ticket in the election, because they were not part of a recognized political party.
  • Robert Robb, a columnist from the Arizona Republic stated that the language of the proposition negatively affected independent voters, and would make it more difficult for independents from holding office. Robb also stated there was a sense of "disenchantment" with partisan politics in the country, and that the measure only played into pushing non-partisan candidates away from gaining office.[14]

Campaign contribution


The following contributions were made in support of the measure:

Contributor Amount
Sundt Companies Inc. $5,000
Coleman Dahm $4,987.50
Keane Creative $4,687
Keane Creative $4,687
Arizona Business Coalition $2,500
Arizona Firefighters $2,500
Arizona Multihousing Association PAC $610
Arizona Multihousing Association $390
Government for Arizona's Second Century $100

Analysis, studies and reports

Legislative analysis

A legislative council analysis performed on the measure and published in the Arizona Secretary of State's Publicity Pamphlet, impartially stated the following, in terms of what the measure would do if enacted:[3]

Proposition 111 would amend the Arizona Constitution to rename the office of secretary of state as the office of lieutenant governor, beginning with the term of office that starts in 2015. The lieutenant governor elected in the November 2014 general election would assume all of the duties currently performed by the secretary of state, including being first in the line of succession to replace a governor unable to serve.
The proposition provides that during the primary election, candidates for the office of lieutenant governor would run separately from candidates for the office of governor. The nominees selected at the primary election for the office of governor and lieutenant governor from the same political party would then run on a single ticket in the general election. At the general election, voters would cast a single vote for a candidate for governor, and that vote would constitute a vote for the ticket, including the candidate for lieutenant governor.
Proposition 111 also would make a technical change by consolidating two overlapping versions of Article V, section 1 of the Arizona Constitution and then repealing one of the overlapping versions.

Media endorsements

See also: Endorsements of Arizona ballot measures, 2010


  • The Yuma Sun supported Proposition 111, saying, "Overall, however, the change would be beneficial. The name lieutenant governor gives a clearer indication of the succession role of the position, whether on a temporary or permanent basis, when they governor is unable to perform his or her duties. And having the two positions from the same political party is more likely to maintain the political continuity desired by voters. [15]
  • The Arizona Republic was for the measure, writing, "The commonsense creation of a lieutenant governor has bipartisan support. It is among the reforms that emerged from Government for Arizona's 2nd Century, a discussion supported by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the O'Connor House Project and Greater Phoenix Leadership. Voters should say "yes" to Proposition 111.[16]


  • The East Valley Tribune recommended a 'no' vote on the measure, stating, "Prop 111 requires the lieutenant governor to run on the same party ticket as the governor in the general election (to ensure a possible governor’s successor comes from the same party). That’s all well and good, but do you really want a lieutenant governor whose job is to oversee the election of his/her running mate? That screams conflict of interest."[17]
  • The Arizona Daily Star stated that the measure "Would create a lieutenant governor position instead of secretary of state. We support the idea, but this proposition has troubling language that causes problems for independents and third-party candidates."[18]
  • The Desert Lamp stated in an editorial about the measure: "Proposition 111 would make the Arizona government more of what is already is – overly partisan and limiting to independent candidates."[19]
  • Goldwater State was against the measure, stating, "Preferring more independent voices at the Capitol even if it does from time to time make the governor's social legitimacy "interesting", I recommend a weak "no"."[20]

Path to the ballot

A majority vote is required in the Arizona State Legislature to refer a measure to the ballot. Arizona is one of ten states that allows a referred amendment to go on the ballot after a majority vote in one session of the state's legislature. The Arizona House of Representatives approved the measure on April 21, 2010 with a vote of 57-9. The measure was passed to the ballot when the Arizona Legislature's session ended on April 29, 2010.[1][21]

See also

Suggest a link

External links

Additional reading


  1. 1.0 1.1 Kold News, "Arizona House OKs ballot measure on lt. governor", April 21, 2010
  2. Deseret News, "Proposition proposes lieutenant governor in Arizona", September 19, 2010
  3. 3.0 3.1 Arizona Secretary of State, "Publicity Pamphlet", Retrieved September 21, 2010
  4. Arizona Secretary of State, "2010 General Election:Ballot measures"
  5. Arizona Legislature, "Text of Amendment"
  6. Tuscon Citizen, "Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry endorses five ballot measures", June 25, 2010
  7. Kingman Daily Miner, "Officials sound off on upcoming propositions", October 14, 2010
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Morrison Institute, "2010: Proposition 111, Lieutenant Governor", Retrieved September 3, 2010
  9. East Valley Tribune, "Voters: Awaken and prepare for heavy-duty ballot propositions", October 10, 2010
  10. Blog For Arizona, "PCDP Ballot Measure Recommendations", Retrieved October 18, 2010
  11. Kingman Daily Miner, "Officials sound off on upcoming propositions", October 14, 2010
  12. Inside Tuscon Business, "Pro-business endorsements from Tucson chamber of commerce", October 22, 2010
  13. Arizona Republic, "Eligibility under Prop. 111 stirs debate", October 24, 2010
  14. Blog for Arizona, "Prop. 111 appears to be the "least bad" of the lege-initiated ballot questions, but appearances can be deceiving", September 21, 2010
  15. Yuma Sun, "Proposition 111 seeks to clarify succession line", October 1, 2010
  16. Arizona Republic, "Reasons we should say 'yes' to Prop. 111", September 28, 2010
  17. East Valley Tribune, "Endorsements: Ballot propositions", October 24, 2010
  18. Arizona Daily Star, "The Star's recommendations on state, local propositions", October 28, 2010
  19. Desert Lamp, "The Desert Lamp’s Ballot Proposition Endorsements", October 20, 2010
  20. Goldwater State, "Ballot question summaries and recommendations part 1: Propositions 106-113, the Constitutional amendments", November 1, 2010
  21. The Arizona Republic, "Arizona Legislature set to go home after wide-ranging session", April 30, 2010