Difference between revisions of "Arizona Sales Tax Increase, Proposition 100 (May 2010)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Constitutional changes: Removed sentence.)
m (Text replace - "[[sunshinereview:" to "[[")
Line 88: Line 88:
==Possible fiscal impact==
==Possible fiscal impact==
:: ''See also: [[sunshinereview:Arizona state budget|Arizona State Budget]]''
:: ''See also: [[Arizona state budget|Arizona State Budget]]''
===Contingency plan===
===Contingency plan===

Revision as of 06:41, 16 August 2013

Arizona Constitution
Flag of Arizona.png
An Arizona Sales Tax Increase, also known as Proposition 100, was on the May 18, 2010 special election ballot in Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved Approveda. Mohave County was the only county in the state to have voted no on the measure, with 54% rejecting the measure. All other counties voted yes on the proposition.[1]

The sales tax hike is projected to generate approximately $1 billion a year. It will hike the state's sales tax from 5.6 cents to 6.6 cents on every dollar of taxable items purchased. The sales tax increase will be a three-year temporary increase. Brewer also included the proposed ballot measure in her Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal. Early voting for the measure began during the week of April 18, 2010. Early voting was expected to be a light turnout.[2][3][4]

Gov. Jan Brewer wanted the Arizona State Legislature to vote to refer the one cent sales tax increase to the ballot, as a means to alleviate the state's budget strain. According to Brewer, "If we don't get additional revenue in 2011, it will be a disaster. 2012 will be a major catastrophe."[5][6]

As of April 29, 2010, early voting in the state had shown many people became interested in the issue in Arizona counties. According to reports, Pima County had reported at the time that about 33,000 ballots were returned out of the 164,000 that the county had mailed out.[7]

Two days before the election, the measure was expected to turn out a large number of voters, according to county election officials across the state. The measure was predicted to attract about 45% percent of Arizona voters. A statewide special election hadn't been held in the state since 1980 when 30% of voters flocked to the polls to decide on whether or not to cap property tax increases.[8]



Reports out of the state claimed that the revenue that was brought in during the first month of the sales tax's implementation has fallen short of projections by supporters. The sales tax brought in $65 million into the state coffers during the first month, which was short of the $72 million projected to be generated. Opponents stated that the raise in the sales tax hike won't even be sufficient to help bridge some fiscal gaps in the state budget, as main proponent Governor Jan Brewer stated it would do.

However, members of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee stated that the revenue could rise, suggesting that in some cases, a 120-day exemption period must be considered for purchases made under contracts that were signed prior to the sales tax taking effect in the state.[9]


Two weeks before the implementation of the sales tax, businesses prepared for the effects. Neil Schrock, who is a general sales manager at Sanderson Ford car dealership, stated that the business had been planning to advertise to warn voters that the newly approved sales tax increase would impact vehicle prices. Schrock stated that the ads would encourage buyers to purchase their cars before the tax is implemented. According to Schrock, "Example: A $40,000 rig is now going to be $400 more. If you finance that, then there's finance charges also on that $400. So it's considerable...We will have an ad run in the paper, also do some radio. I'm sure, just to remind folks that if they're thinking about buying a car, now is the best time."[10]

With the sales tax increase approved, schools in the state then turned to crafting their budgets. For Amphitheater School District, a plan was already in place if the sales tax was defeated and if it was approved. The district is planning on eliminating a large portion of its free full-day kindergarten, increasing class sizes and reducing staff and faculty. In the Marana Unified School District, changes are taking place as well, but not as drastic as it would have if Prop 100 had failed, according to the district. The district is also bringing back all but two of the 64 teachers who were given notices about potential reductions.[11]

According to Dennis Hoffman, economics professor at Arizona State University in the week leading up to the sales tax, "This will be a huge weekend for sales of durables in terms of furniture and automobiles."[12]


School District officials across the state showed relief after the passage of Proposition 100, with the proposed cuts to education that were reported to take place if the measure failed. Gary Catalani, superintendent for the Scottsdale Unified School District, claimed, "This is a great day for all students in our state. Scottsdale Unified School District will be able to retain valuable teaching staff and important programs. Thank you to our community for your support of education." According to Fountain Hills Unified School District board member Dana Staar, "It's a good thing. It would not have been fun if it hadn't passed as far as classroom instruction goes when you've got to take aides and so many support staff from the classroom. This will get us by until the economy gets better."[13]

Although the measure passed, supporters still had budget concerns, stating the sales tax increase was a bridge to help the state assess their structural deficit. Supporters, such as Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer also claimed that the measure is "not a cure-all."[14]


Opponents reacted to the passage of the amendment with skepticism, taking the same stance as before the vote had taken place. According to Richard Bayse, member of the Association of Taxpayers, "I would just hope the citizens of Arizona keep a close watch on the legislature and see that they don't subsequent to this vote, pass a corporate tax cut that takes away as much revenue as we're being taxed to generate revenue." John Kromko, another member of the Association, stated, "I think we have to work to change the tax structure in Arizona because this doesn't get us out of the woods at all, this just takes care of like 1/3 of the deficit. That's one of the reasons I was hoping it would fail."[15]

According to Senator Thayer Verschoor, who campaigned against the sales tax, argued, "[Lawmakers] are going to say the voters have spoken ... in favor of continuing to spend and not to make further cuts, and yet I believe revenues will continue to fall."[14]

Educational cuts

According to reports out of the state, despite the passage of the measure, budget cuts still appear to be on the horizon, particularly in education. Senator Thayer Verschoor, who was against the measure, claimed that the cuts to education are inevitable, stating, "Just because this proposition was passed doesn’t mean there won’t be more budget cuts to education." Estimates for first quarter tax revenue are $44 million below predictions; this coming from a report released on September 29, 2010.

Elma Delic, board chair of the Arizona Students' Association stated that the cuts to education would have been worse had Proposition 100 failed to pass. The measure, according to Delic, although not the cure for the economic crisis in the state, has been helpful.[16]

Election results

Official election results for the amendment read:

Proposition 100
Approveda Yes 750,850 64.3%

Election results via the Arizona Secretary of State's Official Canvass of Election Results

Text of amendment

Ballot title

The ballot title of the measure read as follows:[17]

A ‘yes’ vote shall have the effect of temporarily increasing the state transaction privilege sales and use tax by one cent per dollar for three years to fund primary and secondary education, health and human services and public safety.
A ‘no’ vote shall have the effect of keeping the state transaction privilege sales and use taxes at their current levels.


The short summary, according to the Arizona Secretary of State's website read as follows:[18]

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; amending Article IX, Constitution of Arizona by adding section 12.1; relating to temporary transaction privilege and use taxes.

Fiscal impact statement

The following was the fiscal impact statement that could be found in the voters' pamphlet on the Arizona Secretary of State's website:

"State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal impact of Proposition 100. Beginning June 1, 2010, Proposition 100 would amend the Arizona Constitution to temporarily increase the state transaction privilege and use taxes ("state sales tax") by one cent per one dollar for three years.

Proposition 100 is projected to increase state sales tax revenues by $918 million in the first year. The proposition is projected to increase state sales tax revenues by $968 million in the second year and $1.06 billion in the third year."[19]

Constitutional changes

Arizona Sales Tax Increase, constitutional text changes

The measure will amend the Arizona Constitution by adding Section 12.1 to the Article IX.[20][21]


Taxes 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, taxes, 2010 Map.png

Governor's veto

In June 2009, lawmakers approved a state budget, but only days later, Brewer vetoed the bill because it did not include the sales tax measure.[22]

On July 31, 2009 lawmakers attempted to pass a state budget for the new fiscal year which began July 1, 2009. But, by the end of the day, lawmakers found themselves at yet another stalemate on the already late budget because of a failed agreement on the sales tax increase initiative.[23]

Ballot number controversy

On April 9, 2010, Brewer vetoed a bill that, according to supporters, would have helped clear confusion on ballot measures and their designated numbers on statewide ballots. Supporters stated that it is very confusing to voters that must see a Proposition 200 every year on the ballot. According to the proposed bill, measures would be assigned continuous numbers instead of having the same numbers appear every year. However, Brewer vetoed the bill due to the May election nearing and the sales tax question potentially having to change its number a little over a month before voters decide on it. Brewer did not want to see Proposition 100, which is the number designated to the sales tax increase, be reassigned as Proposition 106, due to fear that it would unintentionally confuse voters.[24]

Possible fiscal impact

See also: Arizona State Budget

Contingency plan

A contingency plan, if voters had rejected the tax, showed that the state could owe the federal government a significant amount of money if voters reject the tax in May. That amount of money could be as much as what the tax would rake in if it were approved. The plan showed that approximately $428.6 million in K-12 education aid would be cut, in addition to the $380 million that legislature is proposing to cut in order to balance the 2011 budget.

The plan goes further in cutting 12 percent in university system funding, which would be $39.3 million for Arizona State University, $32.6 million for the University of Arizona, and more than $16 million for Northern Arizona University. According to reports, big changes may still come to the state now that the measure was approved. In an agreement between Governor Brewer and Republican legislative members, one change that could occur is the elimination of full-day kindergarten in the state.[25]

The cuts would allegedly amount to tens of millions of dollars. According to Arizona State University Provost Elizabeth Capaldi, commenting on the sales tax increase's impact on tuition, if rejected by voters, "I don't know what we would have to do. It is possible that we would have to have an additional surcharge, and that would be awful."


Board of Regents member Anne Mariucci claimed, "The impact of the state sales-tax measure failing would be completely catastrophic. We'd have to consider all options. But, I'll tell you, it's hard to entertain additional requests for tuition increases until we see what cuts and efficiencies can be achieved at the university level."[26]

John Kavanagh argued that university officials were misplacing their arguments about cutting funds. Kavanagh stated that universities needed to figure out solutions to save costs instead of blaming state government. He stated, "We have a $3.4 billion shortfall, and that's after we cut over a billion. We don't have money to invest a lot in anything, and we're doing the best we can. For them to suggest that we increase appropriations (to them) when we are cutting everyone else, I think is a little selfish."[26]

A story written by the Arizona Daily Star stated that cuts to education would still come even with the passage of Proposition 1. According to the story, "If voters approve the temporary penny sales-tax increase on the May 18 ballot, public education would receive the lion's share of the projected $1 billion it would raise in annual revenues. And while a full two-thirds of the revenues would be steered to K-12, make no mistake: Education cuts are coming regardless." According to the story, cuts would come in teachers' jobs, extracurricular activities, and salary cuts.[27]

Special legislative session

Although Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer stated confidence in the measure passing when placed before voters, Brewer had stated another back up plans if the measure had failed, in addition to cuts taking place. Brewer also said that another special legislative session would have to have been called in order to implement steps by approving certain legislation in that session. Those steps would have included changing state law in order to make those cuts in education, state prisons, public safety, health care services and other agencies.[28]



Supporters of the measure are as follows:

  • Governor Jan Brewer had fought strongly in favor of the measure. In June, the governor vetoed the new fiscal year budget bill after it was approved without the sales tax increase measure. According to Brewer when campaigning for the measure in the weeks leading up to the election, "It is always a difficult thing to vote for an increase in taxes but it is the right thing to do. Prop 100 is not a cure all but it will get us through. If we don't get the revenue we will have to cut another billion dollars."[5][29]
  • The Yes on 100 committee filed paperwork with the Arizona Secretary of State during the week of February 18, 2010 and formed on February 19, 2010, according to Max Fose who was running the campaign. The committee tried to persuade voters to vote for the sales tax increase and inform them of the benefits of a "yes" vote. The organization stated that the tax hike would help pay for education, health and public safety. Fose stated that the group was non-partisan and it would be made up of educators, business executives and some elected officials in the state.[30]
  • The Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, with concerns over negative economic impact to the Hispanic community, supported the measure in an economic forecast publication. In the publication, the chamber included policy recommendations to Arizona Hispanics. One such recommendation was to support the sales tax increase proposed for the state. According to the organization's president and CEO Armando Contreras, "We know that a tax increase would definitely impact the marginalized and poor and small business, but we do believe a temporary tax increase would be needed in order for the state to get back on its feet."[31]
  • The Arizona Tax Research Association stated it would support the measure, but only if the state continued to cut spending to make up the $2 billion structural deficit instead of further raising taxes.[32]
  • The Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association were supporters of the amendment, with chairman Norm Botsford stating in an editorial, "Our hospitals employ more than 80,000 people and contribute $11.5 billion to the gross state product. Hospital employees account for 7 percent of Arizona's wages and salaries. In fact, our hospitals have added thousands of jobs during the most severe times of our state's recession economy. A temporary increase in the state's sales tax is a practical solution to today's economic challenges."[33]
  • Kristin Borns, senior policy analyst with the Morrison Institute for Public Safety, stated her support of the measure in a column published by the Arizona Republic, giving specific examples of what the measure could possibly do for the state. Borns wrote, "Nothing is more critical, more necessary and more immediate than creating a balanced tax structure that decreases volatility, encourages private-sector growth and sets Arizona on the path to its second century as a global economic player."[34]
  • Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard had previously stated an opposition to the measure, stating, that he couldn't support the sales tax if he didn't get further clarity on whether the governor would veto tax cuts for corporations, if passed in legislative session. He stated in a letter to Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer: "Arizonans like my wife and me cannot support your proposed sales tax increase if you intend to follow it with across-the-board corporate tax cuts. I call upon you to pledge your veto to any non-targeted corporate tax giveaways that would appreciably offset the short-term revenue gains from Prop. 100." However, Goddard changed his stance to support the measure, "Prop 100 is necessary, it’s the only choice given and Arizona needs to change course and get serious about educating kids." According to reports, Brewer claimed an opposition to business tax cuts, which was what Goddard had wanted, stating, "I've been on the record saying that there is no way we're going to go out and ask the people of the state of Arizona to vote for a temporary tax and then come back and do business tax cuts."[35][36][37]


Arguments in favor of the measure included the following:[38][33]

  • Tax increase would result in a revenue boost, and would preserve Arizona's work force, quality of life.
  • Additions to the state, including more students, prisoners and health care patients, have strained the state, and the tax increase would help alleviate that.
  • Would create $1 billion in revenue each of the three years the tax would be implemented in.
  • If the measure failed, the state would face cuts in education, public safety and health care.
  • State physicians, hospitals and other health-care professionals would face an additional 10 percent cut in payments for care if measure failed, according to Norm Botsford, chairman of the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association
  • Botsford stated that hospitals would lose $342 million per year in state and federal matching funds as a result of Proposition 100's defeat.
  • According to Botsford in an editorial published by the Arizona Daily Star, "Prop. 100 is not a permanent increase, nor does it provide a permanent solution to our state's budget problems. Proposition 100 will, however, serve as a bridge over some troubled fiscal waters we face in the next three years and provide stability for our core institutions as the state's economy rebuilds."
  • Yes on 100 Committee stated in addition to the approximate $420 million cuts in K-12 funding and $100 million in education funding, other cuts included: public safety would see an $85 million cut and health and human services would see $110 million in cuts.[39]
  • $62 million would be cut from the Arizona Department of Corrections, which would result in the transfer of thousands of inmates from state to county prisons. This would result in county jails seeking ways to make up the difference of the influx, possibly by raising property taxes, according to supporters of the measure.[40]
  • In an editorial published and written by the Arizona Daily Star, the measure would help out the elderly in the state. The editorial argued that if the measure passed, the one-third of the proposed revenue would be used for "health and human services", which included a large part of the senior citizen assistance. However, if the measure failed, agencies such as the Pima Council on Aging would face major cuts. The agency would lose, according to members, between $800,000 and $900,000.[41]
  • Prep school athletics would have been affected, according to school districts in the state. According to Herman House, director of interscholastics for the Tuscon Unified School District, "If it fails, the announcement has come from our district office that the possibility of eliminating athletics across the board in our district is real." The district would have had to shave $45 million from its budget, according to House. Steve Hogan, athletic director of the Mesa School District, largest district in the state, claimed, "Athletic directors are a resilient bunch and we always seem to find a way. At the same time, there are fiscal realities you can’t ignore. Sometimes, that has bad consequences for the kids."[42]

Television ads

Rallies, debates and campaign tactics

  • A demonstration was held at the Arizona Capitol on March 26, 2010 that saw college students lobby for the approval of the measure. The rally was attended by the Arizona Students' Association, a group of students from the three major universities in the state, including Arizona State University and the University of Arizona. According to Elma Delic, a member of the organization, "We’ve seen the largest tuition increases a couple of weeks ago,” Delic said. “That’s going to continue to happen if we don’t get our funding." Delic was referring to the Arizona Board of Regents' decision to approve an increase in tuition for the three state universities. Ashley Wilcox, member of the student group, stated her argument for the tax, "To put it in context: 1 cent per dollar or lose millions of dollars,” Wilcox said. “When you compare and contrast like that, it’s really the only option."[43]
  • On April 9, 2010 a group of Arizona college students associated with the Arizona Students' Association held a rally and marched from to downtown Flagstaff in support of Proposition 100. Students voiced their concerns over a sharp increase in tuition if the measure fails. According to Lauren Talkington, secretary of the group, “The bad news is that if it doesn’t get passed, there is going to be a huge decrease in state funding. There could be upwards of a $1,000 increase in tuition, and along with that, there would be staff shortages, professor shortages and more furloughs — basically, a worst-case scenario.” Students who attended the rally held up signs stating phrases such as "Yes on 100!" and wearing shirts that stated, "I'm a student and I vote!."Talking had stated she didn't know the details of the measure and the full economic implications, but did state, "If this doesn’t pass, I think that our economy will be far worse off. Obviously, education is what makes the world go around. If we want Arizona to have an economy in the future, we’re going to need education."[44]
  • On February 26, 2010, the Arizona Secretary of State's office received 120 arguments for and against the sales tax measure. However, there were significantly more arguments for the sales tax increase than against. According to reports, 94 arguments for the amendment were submitted, while 26 were submitted against the measure. These arguments are to be mailed voters' homes before the May 18 special election in official publicity pamphlets.[45]
  • Brewer spoke about her proposal when she met with county and local officials in Cochise County and Graham County. Her promotions included painting a bleak picture for the state if her sales tax increase was not passed. Brewer stated, "Our checkbook is overdrawn, our credit card is maxed out and we’ve mortgaged the house." The governor also said the budget deficit would increase next fiscal year, and that the state budget is about $1 million short of meeting expenses.[46]
  • In a debate held on April 27, 2010, foes faced off on the proposition arguing for and against the measure. Although both sides argued that the economic recession was the reason the measure should have been approved/rejected, both made cited specific examples of their views. Eileen Klein, chief of staff to Gov. Jan Brewer, argued for the measure when she stated that the $1 billion a year revenue that the tax was projected to rake in would prevent cuts in funding to education, health care and public safety. Klein also argued against her opponents' claims that schools needed to spend more wisely. According to Klein, ""The only duping that's going on is the people who think we can run a quality education system without extra resources."[47]
  • Gilbert Public Schools parents, teachers and students planned to hold a rally on May 5, 2010. According to Brena Morreim, who is a parent, stated that the rally was to encourage voters to vote for the measure.[48]
  • A "flash mob" sang its support for Proposition 100 at Park Place Mall, where the group sang "Vote Yes on 100" to the tune of the Macarena. The surprise event took place on May 9, 2010 in front of a crowded food court. The singers wore button up shirts, but then opened them up to reveal undershirts that stated, "Vote Yes on Prop. 100." The performance was organized by the education-advocacy organization, Voices for Education, which is based in Tuscon.[49]

Controversies and stories

  • In a story written by the Arizona Republic, Arizona resident Lupita Majalca stated that she was torn about the sales tax question, because her Douglas, Arizona business, a refrigerator and cake supplies store, would lose money if the sales tax increases and if she keeps her prices the same. She stated that the sales tax is already at 8.9 cents, and that a sales tax increase would cause her to raise her prices, which is hard considering most of her customers are poor. Majalca stated, "I'll have to increase my prices. That's hard." When asked which way she would vote, Majalca stated, "Wow, it's hard. I don't know." She also stated, however, that the tax increase would help out public schools in the area, with the approval of the increase saving teachers' jobs. She stated, "That is so bad. I don't know what they're supposed to do, the government." She stated that the recession has hit her business hard as it tries to survive. Others in the town of Douglas share the same torn sentiment. Murel Smith stated that although he plans to vote yes on the measure come May 18, 2010, he will vote for it reluctantly. According to Smith, "Sales tax would be the last thing I'd want to push. But the state's got to stay as close to being solvent as possible. If it is going to the schools, I'd want to see it."[50]
  • In Dysart, Arizona, the Unified School District would be making major cuts to their budget if the measure fails. According to a report, the school district would face nearly $19 million in cuts. In addition, fifty three teachers and four administrators had been put on notice that they would be let go if the proposition was not approved. This came after a March override election that avoided cuts of $15 million in the district. According to the school district's spokesman Jim Dean, "Ironically, as excited as we were about the passing of the override in March, that excitement was short-lived because within days there were massive cuts to education. This wis not a Dysart issue. It affects every Arizona school district, charter school and public safety and public health services."[51]
  • According to a report by The Explorer News, if the proposition failed, the Arizona Department of Corrections would cut $63 million from its budget and would send thousands of inmates from state prisons to county jails. The reason for such action would minimize the state's budget deficit. Only inmates with one year or less remaining on their sentences would be transferred. As a result, according to reports, Pima County officials are preparing for potential defeat of the measure. The county jail would take in approximately 1,800 prisoners if Prop. 100 fails. Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry stated that to make up the difference, "our property tax would have to be increased 17 percent."[40]
  • In a story written by MaryLee Moulton of the Arizona Education Network, she gave her arguments about the measure being a choice between schools or prisons. She cited that if the measure failed, the state would transfer inmates to county jails because the state will cut prison funding. Moulton stated that the Pima County Sheriff would look to modify existing buildings to accommodate those prisoners. According to Moulton, "Tucson Unified School District will be closing nine neighborhood schools this fall because of the state budget cuts. That will already be devastating to property values those Tucson neighborhoods. Can you imagine what will happen to property values and our city's reputation if schools are turned into jails?".[52]



  • Representative David Stevens stated his opposition to a sales tax increase in an editorial published by the Arizona Range News, stating, "A sales tax increase would lose at least 15,000 jobs with a possibility of nearly 60,000 people needing additional support from the state. That scenario would be disastrous to our economy..." However, Stevens was in favor of allowing the voters to have the final say, writing, "Now it's time to get the final word from Arizona voters on the sales tax increase. I strongly believe this is the best way to move forward with an issue as weighty as a tax increase."[53]
  • Republican Senators Pamela Gorman and Ron Gould stated that they were opposed to the governor's tax measure. Democrat lawmakers claimed they were uncomfortable approving the sales tax measure because they didn't want to use sales taxes paid by consumers in order to balance the budget.[23]
  • Senator Russell Pearce was in opposition to the measure as well, and was creating a website named, "Ax the Tax" in order to show voters there were better alternatives to the sales tax hike. According to Pearce, reducing spending to match revenues was one way, stating, "To raise taxes during a recession is unconscionable."[30]
  • Although Senator Al Melvin had claimed that he had not made up his mind about whether he supported the measure or not, he stated that he was leaning towards opposing it, and said, "I'm worried about the loss of private sector jobs, and people on fixed incomes who can't afford additional taxes."[54]
  • The National Federation of Independent Business claimed in a written statement, "This 18 percent tax hike will further exacerbate major drivers of small business failure and job loss - historically low consumer confidence and dramatically lower consumer spending.[45]
  • The Americans for Prosperity organization was against Proposition 100. Director Tom Jenney said, "This is a terrible time to raise taxes on Arizona’s struggling families and businesses."[6]
  • In a joint statement made public on March 8, 2010, Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl both stated their opposition to the sales tax hike. McCain and Kyl also stated that they supported the right of the Arizona voters to decide on the issue, but claimed, "However, as Arizonans and Americans across our nation continue to face perilous economic times, we fundamentally oppose increasing taxes on small businesses and working families."[55][56]
  • National Federation of Independent Business stated their opposition, claiming that groups that were backing the measure were only doing so because they were hoping the governor would sign a package of tax cuts.[32]
  • Buz Mills, a candidate for the position of Governor of Arizona, stated his opposition to the sales tax measure. According to Mills, the tax increase would take away jobs from the state. Mills stated, "Instituting a tax increase during a recession is like standing in a bucket and trying to pick it up by the handle. It's going to cost us jobs."[57]
  • The Arizona Free Enterprise Club were initially reluctant to oppose the sales tax amendment, on the condition that the legislature pass House Bill 2250. The bill would have given businesses multiple tax breaks, but was rejected during April 2010. The group then formed opposition to the sales tax hike.[58]


Arguments that were made against the proposed sales tax measure included:[59][60][61]

  • Some opponents were stating that the tax would not be temporary, due to historical occurrences concerning temporary taxes.
  • Cuts that were being proposed were scare tactics to lead voters to believe they had no other choice.
  • Sales tax increase raised the price of transactions, which the state did not need in a recession
  • The sales tax was merely a way to bail out the mismanagement of the state government. Raising sales tax made living in the state more expensive to live and work, and would worsen the state's situation.
  • Small businesses could be affected negatively as some businesses would lose money due to a raise in taxes.
  • Voting yes would boost tax burdens by about $400 a household.
  • According to an editorial by Tom Jenney, Arizona director of Americans for Prosperity, the amount of money citizens pay in state sales taxes would go up by 18 percent.
  • In response to potential cuts in education if the measure failed, Jenney countered, "Arizona's K-12 system has massive waste. There is more than enough money, but that money does not trickle down into our classrooms."
  • Health care in Arizona would not be dramatically effected, as cuts in unnecessary and excessive education spending would have freed up money to help public health services, according to Jenney.
  • Bryan Schlomach, economist for the Goldwater Institute, questioned the validity of the sales tax question proposed by lawmakers, stating, "Ten years ago, Arizonans voted to raise the state sales tax with the commitment that the extra money would go to classroom spending. But, earlier this year, the state auditor general reported that just over half of that money is getting into the classroom."[62]

Proposed alternatives

State Treasure Dean Martin introduced alternative ways to deal with the budget crisis instead of depending on a statewide sales tax increase. Martin proposed that the state refinance the $4.5 billion debt in order to create immediate cash. The treasurer's plan included:[63]

  • State could generate $2.7 billion now, and extend payments, spreading them over 30 years.
  • $450 million in debt service would remain constant annually over the time of the proposed plan, but total interest paid, according to Martin, would only be $1.5 billion more.
  • Increase borrowing limit from current $350,000 to help cover the $4.5 billion debt he wants to refinance.
  • Referring his plan to the November 2, 2010 ballot by way of a constitutional amendment.

Martin described the sales tax hike as a "government bailout".[45]

Campaign advertisements

Rallies and debates

  • The National Federation of Independent Businesses and Americans for Prosperity, both Tea Party groups, held a protest against the sales tax measure, and was attended by Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher and was also hosted by J.D. Hayworth. According to Hayworth, who is running for United States Senate against John McCain, "We fundamentally and instinctively understand that our path back to prosperity is not through higher taxes. It is through less taxation and more freedom."[43]
  • During a debate held on April 13, 2010, opponents of the measure stated their case in front of about 50 people. The debate, which was being sponsored by the League of Women Voters, saw opponents state that raising taxes in the middle of a recession was unnecessary. Former Pima County Supervisor Paul Marsh stated the argument, citing a possible 9.1 percent total local sales tax rate.[64]
  • In a debate held on April 27, 2010, foes faced off on the proposition arguing for and against the measure. Although both sides argued that the economic recession is the reason the measure should be approved/rejected, both made cited specific examples of their views. According to Tom Jenny, Arizona director of the group Americans for Prosperity, who was against the measure, there is already money that is being wasted in the state, and the sales tax would make the matter worse. Jenney also argued that instead of putting more money into school funding, the state should loosen regulations placed on administrators so they can make better decisions on when and where to spend money. Jenney said, "We've been burned before. There's absolutely no guarantee this money is going to be spent well."[47]

Controversies and stories

  • In an story profiling Fredonia, a town in Arizona with the highest taxes, the Arizona Republic examined residents' opinions of sales tax in that area, which would obviously further increase if Proposition 100 was passed. According to David Kropf, a longtime resident of the town, many residents were struggling to get by. Kropf stated, "There's nothing around here. You have to make your own job. We just need less government. If you want a tree to grow, you've got to trim the branches somewhere." The report highlighted the fact that the town had no property tax, and relied on the sales tax in order to generate revenue. Although some residents had stated their support for the measure, Town clerk Marilyn Johnston stated that most of the town would probably not support the tax, and would probably reject it with a "resounding no." The town had been in economic trouble since the mid-1990s when a lumber mill and mining operation ceased production and closed. A combination of state, county and town taxes contributed to the town being the highest taxed.[65]
  • In Cave Creek and Carefree, Arizona, high sales tax were making business owners skeptical of the sales tax increase. According to B.J. Smith, owner of Sassy's Salon in Carefree, she was worried about what kind of damage a tax increase could put on her business. Smith stated, "They play on the sympathy of us taxpayers. I don't like the way our elected officials take advantage of the good people of Arizona."[66]
  • According to reports that were coming out of Arizona, the Arizona Education Association had heard rumors that voters were thinking of voting no on Proposition 100 due to the passage of Senate Bill 1070. SB 1070 was the highly controversial immigration bill signed into law by Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer. Opponents of the immigration law were planning on voting no on the sales tax question as a retaliation against Jan Brewer, who was a strong supporter of Prop 100. The immigration law that was passed mandated that immigrants carry their alien registration documents at all times. Also, the law ordered that local, county and state police question people if there was reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.[67][68]

Media editorial posititions

See also Endorsements of Arizona ballot measures, 2010

Yes on Proposition 100

  • The Arizona Republic stated support for the sales tax increase being put on the ballot, saying the issue should be decided by the voters. The publication wrote: "Arizona voters must have the chance to consider a sales-tax increase. The extra tax revenue, estimated at $800 million a year, wouldn't prevent cuts in spending, which is running $10 billion this year. But it would make the difference between painful reductions and devastating ones...Even if it fails, a ballot measure has the value of letting legislators know the public's wishes." Another editorial was published by the newspaper in favor of the measure on May 12, 2010, claiming: "One cent will buy Arizona time to recover from a recession that hit our state unusually hard. Vote "yes" on Prop. 100."[69][70]
  • The Arizona Daily Sun stated support as well, writing, "Yes, it doesn't make any sense to cut corporate taxes while Arizona is in the midst of a state revenue crisis. But it also doesn't make sense to use reckless fiscal policy by the Legislature as an excuse to oppose a temporary sales tax hike at the ballot box."[71]
  • Statepress.com wrote an editorial in support of the measure, stating, "It’s obvious that taxes are not popular — no one likes to see their hard-earned money handed over to the government to do with as it pleases. But these taxed pennies wouldn’t be lost in the abyss of the Arizona deficit, as lawmakers would be unable to redirect the money from its taxpayer-determined destination. Also, the tax is temporary and would expire after three years."[72]
  • The Wilcox Range News endorsed the measure in an editorial published on April 28, 2010. According to the editorial, "The situation we are in now will affect the quality of life for Arizonans for some time. We have to turn this around as quickly as possible. Turning the state of Arizona into worse than a third world country will affect our ability to attract business and residents as the economy improves. That will just deepen the hole we are in. So we urge you to vote yes on Proposition 100, the termporary sales tax."[73]
  • The Arizona Daily Star published an editorial the day of the election, encouraging voters to pass the measure, stating, "Prop. 100 should pass. It won't fix all of Arizona's problems, but without the revenue generated from the three-year sales tax increase, our state will surely suffer damage. Without that patch, essential services will be cut back to a degree that will cause lasting harm."[74]
  • The Yuma Sun stated support of the measure, writing, "The saving grace of the measure is that the governor and lawmakers have promised the tax hike will be only temporary. Proposition 100 has a sunset provision that ends the tax increase in three years. If voters choose to approve the measure, they will be watching to see that most of the revenue is truly used to help education and that it truly is temporary, as promised."[75]

No on Proposition 100

  • The East Valley Tribune was against a sales tax increase, stating: "Those with basic math skills will quickly realize the Brewer tax, targeted to bring in a billion dollars a year, will not be nearly enough to eliminate the state's budget deficit. But the truth is, the state government can eliminate its budget deficits without raising taxes at all."[76]

Campaign contributions

Campaign for

Supporters of the measure gathered more than $419,000 in contributions as of February 23, 2010. That number did not include minor donations to the campaign for the measure. A total of 73 contributions and expenditures have been made for the campaign in favor of the measure, according to the Arizona Secretary of State's office. Contributions and expenditures for the campaign, dates and amounts are shown in the table below:[77][78]

Date Contributor Amount
February 23 High Ground Inc. $25,000
February 24 Friends of ASU/Phoenix c/o ASU Foundation $25,000
February 24 Magellan Health Services $25,000
March 4 Arizona Secretary of State $75
March 4 Arizona Secretary of State $2,200
March 4 Moore Information $29,000
March 9 Greater Phoenix Leadership $50,000
March 9 Arizona Chamber of Commerce $50,000
March 11 Professional Fire Fighter Assoc. $100,000
March 11 Stand for Children $25,000
March 15 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona $10,000
March 15 APS $25,000
March 15 AEA Education Improvement Fund $30,000
March 15 Arizona Campaign for Arts and Culture $79,550
March 16 Arizona School Boards Association, Inc. $25,000
March 18 Scottsdale Healthcare $25,000
March 19 Sundt Companies, Inc. $10,000
March 24 University of Arizona Foundation $250,000
March 30 The Leona Group Arizona $10,000
April 5 Arizona State University Foundation $20,000
April 5 Tucson Medical Center $25,000
April 5 Gila River Indian Community $50,000
April 6 Resolution Copper Mining $10,000
April 6 Corrections Corporation of America $10,000
April 6 Honeywell International PAC $15,000
April 12 Rural Metro Corporation $50,000
April 13 Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce $31,350
April 14 Arizona Association of Community Healthcare Centers, Inc. $10,000
April 14 DMB Associates, Inc. $25,000
April 16 BACIC $25,000
April 20 PMT Ambulance $10,000
April 21 NEA $50,000
April 21 Molera Alvarez Group $25,000
April 22 John C. Lincoln Health Network $15,000
April 22 University Medical Center $25,000
April 23 Arizona Food Marketing Alliance $25,000
April 23 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research $15,000
Date Contributor Amount
April 26 MillerCoors $10,000
April 26 University Physicians Healthcare $25,000
April 27 Yuma Regional Medical Center $15,000
April 27 Apollo Group $25,000
April 27 Arizona's Tooth Doctor for Kids $10,000
April 27 Intel Corp. $25,000
April 28 TP Racing, LLLP $10,000
April 29 Northern Arizona Healthcare $15,000
April 30 Arizonans for Tribal Government Gaming $41,832
April 30 Arizonans for Tribal Government Gaming $24,979.50
April 30 Arizonans for Tribal Government Gaming $290
May 3 El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Center, Inc. $10,000
May 3 Community Partnership of Southern Arizona $10,000
May 3 Rigo's Restaurant $1,916.46
May 3 DWE Mangement Consultants, Inc. $2,845.33
May 3 DWE Mangement Consultants, Inc. $4,800
May 3 League of Mexican American Woman $300
May 3 Old Pueblo Printers $2,512.68
May 3 Lesher Communications, Inc. $3,000
May 4 Banner Health $50,000
May 4 St. Luke's Medical Center $15,000
May 4 District Medical Group, Inc. $10,000
May 5 Friends of ASU/ Phoenix $100,000
May 5 Flagstaff Forty $10,000
May 10 Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce $21,950
May 11 University Physicians Heathcare $25,000
May 11 Cox Communications $25,000
May 11 Tucson Electric Power $10,000
May 11 Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce $15,000
May 11 Centene Management Company LLC $10,000
May 13 Carondelet Health Network $25,000
May 14 Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce $15,000
May 17 Arizona Chamber of Commerce $15,000
May 19 AVNET $20,000
May 24 Tucson Medical Center $10,000
June 1 ASU Friends of Education $30,000

Campaign against

Senator Russell Pearce, head of the Ax the Tax Committee stated that there were no large donations to the campaign. The first financial report for the committee was scheduled to be turned in on March 19, 2010. Although the campaign had not raised as much money as its counterpart, Thayer Verschoor had stated that grassroots campaigning such as social networking would be helpful in swaying voters to vote no. According to Verschoor, "It is preaching to the choir, but you’ve got to remember that that choir is a very vocal choir. They’re out there talking to their friends and neighbors, so I think a lot of word of mouth is out there."[79]

The total amount of money, according to the Arizona Secretary of State's website, as of May 14, 2010, was as follows:[77][80]

Contributor Amount
Ax the Tax Committee $1,215

Studies and figures


  • According to the Arizona Department of Revenue, sales tax revenue was down during the month of March, compared to revenue collected during the same month in the previous year. The department showed that collections were down 3.7 percent. However, tax collections from restaurants in the state did increase by four percent, and overall retail sales rose by a little under one percent.[81]
  • According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, a 6.6 percent sales tax spread across Arizona's population would unlikely vault the state to one of the highest taxed in the country. According to the foundation, other taxes in state remained low, as Arizona had one of the lowest state and local property tax bills in the nation. Income tax in Arizona also ranked as one of the lowest in the 43 states that implement those taxes. The foundation did state, however, that if the sales tax question was passed, Arizona would go from having the 27th highest sales tax rate, to having the 9th highest.[82]


  • The University of Arizona Economic and Business Research Center conducted a study pertaining to Proposition 100, and concluded that the measure would save more than 13,000 jobs. In addition to saving these jobs, the study also claimed that the measure would preserve approximately $442 million in federal matching funds for the state. According to the study, researchers took into account the state agency budgets and how funds are spent. Researchers also used a model that monitored the spending by state agencies, revenue projections of the measure, and budget cuts that had been proposed during legislative session. The University of Arizona would face cuts in funding if the measure had failed.[83]


  • In 2009, the Goldwater Institute asked The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University to perform a study on the effects of Arizona raising its sales tax. According to the study, the institute concluded that the state would lose approximately 14,000 sector jobs. According to Byron Scholmach, Ph.D., director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute, the study was based on real world analysis. The Beacon Hill Institute stated that the analysis was based on their STAMP (Tax Analysis Modeling Program) model. Additionally, the institution found that the increase would, according to the study, cut the state's economic output by $1.2 billion and residents would see their total after-tax income fall by an average of $300 per household. Also included in the conclusions wss the potential loss of 5,260 public employment jobs.[84][85]
  • The Reason Foundation, together with Americans for Prosperity, released a whitepaper offering baseline budget reductions and one-time sources of windfall revenue. The document identified $760 million in baseline budget reductions and $2.6 billion in one-time revenues for FY 2010 and $3.5 billion in baseline budget reductions and $1.6 billion in one-time revenues for FY 2011.[86]


  • The Yes on 100 committee conducted a poll of 506 Arizona residents during February 24-25, 2010, asking voters if they would support the sales tax increase slated for the May 18, 2010 special election ballot. The results showed that 39 percent of voters would "definitely" vote yes and 19 percent would "likely" vote yes. On the other side, 28 percent stated they would "definitely" vote no and 7 percent would "likely" vote no. Only 7 percent of those polled were undecided. The question that was asked was the exact language of the measure's ballot title.
Arizona Capitol Times reporter Jim Small stated skepticism in the newspaper's blog page, claiming that the campaign did not release the complete poll. According to Small, "But by offering a portion of the survey for public consumption, they want the best of both worlds. The campaign expects reporters to take that bit of the poll it wants to tout publicly and cover it, but they refuse to release the complete poll. They can’t have it both ways."[87]
  • A poll of Arizona small business owners conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business during February 17-19, 2010 showed that 70.6% percent stated that they opposed the temporary sales tax hike, and 24.8% percent favor the tax increase.[88][17]
Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided Number polled
Feb. 17-19, 2010 NFIB 24.8 70.6 4.6 online poll
Feb. 24-25, 2010 Yes on 100 58 35 7 506

Press release by Yes on 100 can be found here.

Path to the ballot

Report of vote on Senate floor to refer Proposition 100 to ballot
See also: How the Arizona Legislature can refer ballot questions to the Arizona ballot

During the week of December 12, 2009, Governor Jan Brewer met with legislative officials to discuss whether or not to hold a special session for lawmakers to brainstorm ideas relating to the measure and the state budget crisis. The budget crisis is currently the worst the state has gone through and state leaders believed the sooner the ballot measure was put before voters, the faster solutions the state would see at the time. Brewer first wanted to hold the special election for December 17, 2009.

However, on December 16, 2009, Secretary of State Ken Bennett claimed that the state needed more time to set up an election for the measure. Brewer called Arizona Legislature into the fifth special session the next day, despite these concerns. However the referral of the ballot measure to the state voters was dropped, for the time being.[89][90][76]

During the week of January 27, 2010, the sales tax measure resurfaced in the legislative session as lawmakers considered placing the temporary one-cent sales tax increase on the May special election ballot. According to Senate President Robert Burns and House Speaker Kirk Adams, support was spread thin among lawmakers for the sales tax.

Despite Burns’ allegations, the Senate President reported at the time that the sales tax increase would most likely be included on an upcoming election, which subsequently, it was included on the special election ballot.

On February 2, 2010, the Arizona State Senate approved the measure with a 16-12 vote. The measure was placed in front of the state House of Representatives on February 4, 2010, where it was approved by a vote of 35-25. As a result, it was sent to the ballot.[91][92]

During the week of February 12, 2010, the State house voted to end the special session that was called during the month of January 2010, thus paving the way for the May 18 special election to take place. Since the special session was called to an end, legislation authorizing the special election could be implemented before that special election date.[93]


The following is a time line of events relating to the ballot measure:

  • December 12, 2009: Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer met with legislative officials to discuss whether or not to hold a special session pertaining to budget crisis.
  • December 16, 2009: Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett claimed that the state needed more time to set up an election for the measure.
  • December 18, 2009:: The East Valley Tribune publishes a commentary by Tom Jenny, Arizona director for Americans for Prosperity, who is against a tax hike.
  • January 27, 2010: The sales tax measure resurfaced in the legislative session as lawmakers considered placing tax increase on the May ballot.
  • February 2, 2010: The Arizona State Senate approved the measure with a 16-12 vote, sending it to the Arizona House of Representatives.
  • February 4, 2010: The measure was placed in front of the Arizona House of Representatives, where it was approved by a vote of 35-25, sending it to the May ballot.
  • February 12, 2010: The State house voted to end the special session, thus paving the way for the May 18 special election to take place.
  • February 18, 2010: The Yes on 100 committee filed paperwork with the Arizona Secretary of State to officially form.
  • February 19, 2010: The Yes on 100 committee officially formed.
  • February 23, 2010: Supporters of the measure gathered more than $419,000 in contributions.
  • February 24-25, 2010: Yes on 100 committee conducted a poll of 506 Arizona residents.
  • February 26, 2010: The Arizona Secretary of State's office received 120 arguments for and against the sales tax measure.
  • March 8, 2010: Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl both stated their opposition to the sales tax hike in a joint written statement.
  • March 26, 2010: A demonstration was held at the Arizona Capitol that saw college students lobby for the approval of the measure.
  • April 9, 2010: Governor vetoes bill that would have changed Proposition 100 to Proposition 106, due to fear of confusing voters.
  • April 18, 2010: Early voting for the measure begins.

Similar measures

  • In 1983, the Arizona Legislature increased the state sales tax to 5 cents from the previous 4 cents in order to balance the budget, similar to Proposition 100. The temporary tax was scheduled to expire in the summer of 1984, but the governor at the time, Bruce Babbitt, introduced a proposed budget that would leave a permanence to the sales tax, which was subsequently approved. The tax was changed 16 years later by former governor Jane Hull, who increased the tax to 0.6 cents on the dollar. The .6 cent increase was placed on the ballot for voter approval, and was introduced to pay for education in the state.[59]
  • In 1997, the city of Phoenix saw a transit tax proposed, but was defeated by 122 votes. The proposal would have been implemented as a permanent tax. A similar measure was then introduced again three years later, but stated there would be a twenty year expiration on the tax. This time, the tax was passed.[59]
  • In 2000, voters in Arizona approved a sales tax increase, an increase that brought the levy from 5.0% to the current 5.6%. The measure, Proposition 301, authorized issuance of up to $800 million of new school improvement revenue bonds. The measure passed with 53.5% of voters approving the measure.


In a Q&A interview with Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, The Arizona Republic asked:[94]

"Given that you don't have much time to prepare, what challenges do you face in handling the May 18 statewide election for a temporary sales tax?"

Part of Bennett's response to the question read:

"Putting together a statewide election is a massive task that requires a coordinated effort by our staff and that of elections officials throughout our 15 counties. Ballot language is approved. Polling places are coordinated. Educational pamphlets are prepared and mailed to nearly 2 million households. The preparation is immense - and that's before the real work of Election Day has even begun..."

According Governor Jan Brewer, in statements made to residents of Benson, Arizona, regarding if the measure is voted down:

"I am trying to protect public education, which is the cornerstone for our future and the basis for our economic recovery. If this sales tax does not pass, we will then cut another $1 billion out of the budget."[95]

See also


External links

Additional reading






  1. Havasunnews.com, "Mohave County voters just say no to Prop. 100", May 19, 2010
  2. Yuma Sun,"Budget goes to governor without her tax demand," July 1, 2009
  3. Phoenix Business Journal, "Brewer's FY2011 budget features major cuts", January 16, 2010
  4. Arizona Republic, "Sales-tax debate in Arizona likely to intensify", April 18, 2010
  5. 5.0 5.1 KOLD, "Arizona budget could be catastrophe", July 15, 2009
  6. 6.0 6.1 Arizona City Independent, "Ariz. sales tax hike debate in full bloom", March 3, 2010
  7. Arizona Daily Star, "County's early ballots show strong interest in Prop. 100", April 29, 2010
  8. Arizona Daily Star, "Sizable turnout predicted for sales-tax vote", May 16, 2010
  9. Arizona Republic, "Arizona's sales-tax boost falls short in first month" September 4, 2010
  10. KTAR.com, "Consumers need to hurry to beat tax hike", May 20, 2010
  11. The Explorer, "With Prop 100 OK, local school districts look to final budgets", May 26, 2010
  12. Arizona Republic, "Sales push is on as tax boost nears", May 28, 2010
  13. Arizona Republic, "Passage of state sales tax boosts school coffers", May 19, 2010
  14. 14.0 14.1 Arizona Republic, "Arizona still faces budget trouble with tax-hike OK", May 19, 2010
  15. KVOA.com, "Prop 100 opponents react to sales tax passage", May 19, 2010
  16. Statepress.com, "Cuts to education anticipated despite Prop 100 passage", September 30, 2010
  17. 17.0 17.1 Tuscon Weekly, "Early Poll: Voters Support Sales Tax Measure", March 15, 2010
  18. Arizona Secretary of State, "2010 May Special Election"
  19. Arizona Secretary of State, "2010 Ballot Proposition & Sample Ballot"
  20. Arizona State Legislature, "Arizona Constitution"
  21. Arizona Legislature, "Senate Concurrent Resolution 1001"
  22. Yuma Sun,"Budget goes to governor without her tax demand," July 1, 2009
  23. 23.0 23.1 23.2 East Valley Tribune,"Brewer, Burns try to round up budget votes," July 31, 2009
  24. KOLD News, "Ariz. governor vetoes bill on ballot measures", April 9, 2010
  25. Arizona Daily Star, "Education cuts are certain if proposed tax is rejected," March 9, 2010
  26. 26.0 26.1 The Arizona Republic, "Regents OK big hikes in tuition at ASU, UA, NAU", March 12, 2010
  27. Arizona Daily Star, "More school cuts coming even if Prop. 100 passes", May 9, 2010
  28. Bloomburg Businessweek, "Arizona gov: Session needed if sales tax fails", May 12, 2010
  29. The State Column, "Governor Jan Brewer Urges Arizona Voters to Support Prop. 100", May 12, 2010
  30. 30.0 30.1 Arizona Republic, "Effort to promote boost in state sales tax debuts", February 23, 2010
  31. Phoenix Business Journal, "Datos report: AZ Hispanics buying power increases, but hard hit by recession", March 3, 2010
  32. 32.0 32.1 Arizona Republic, "Proposition 100 conflict highlighted", April 23, 2010
  33. 33.0 33.1 Arizona Daily Star, "Pro: Hospitals, not only schools and police, would benefit from increase", April 28, 2010
  34. The Arizona Republic, "Sales tax would help state get on its feet", May 9, 2010
  35. Arizona Daily Star, "Pueblo Politics: Goddard takes stance on sales tax increase", March 17, 2010
  36. My Fox Phoenix, "Gov. Brewer Campaigns Hard for Prop 100", May 11, 2010
  37. The Arizona Republic, "Brewer: 'No way' she will support tax cuts", May 11, 2010
  38. ABC 15, "Hear Me Out: Should 1-cent sales tax increase be passed?", April 12, 2010
  39. Explorer News, "Pass Prop 100", April 28, 2010
  40. 40.0 40.1 The Explorer, "Pima officials plan for sharp hike if 100 falls", April 28, 2010
  41. Arizona Daily Star, "Prop. 100 needed to preserve help for the elderly", May 9, 2010
  42. Maxpreps.com, "Arizona: Proposition 100 will have major impact on prep athletics", May 12, 2010
  43. 43.0 43.1 State Press, "Phoenix demonstrations take both sides of Proposition 100", March 28, 2010
  44. Jack Central, "Students rally downtown for Proposition 100", April 15, 2010
  45. 45.0 45.1 45.2 The Daily Courier, "Arizonans weigh in on proposed sales tax increase", February 27, 2010
  46. Eastern Arizona Courier, "Governor shows dark picture of future", March 10, 2010
  47. 47.0 47.1 The Arizona Republic, "Tax foes, backers face off at debate of Proposition 100", April 28, 2010
  48. Arizona Republic, "Gilbert rally Wednesday for sales-tax proposal", May 1, 2010
  49. Arizona Daily Star, "'Flash mob' at mall sings support for Prop. 100", May 10, 2010
  50. Arizona Republic, "Arizona border town residents torn over vote on sales tax", April 17, 2010
  51. Yourwestvalley.com, "Prop 100 failure would add to Dysart's woes", April 26, 2010
  52. Tuscon Sentinel, "Prop.100 choice between education and prisons", May 6, 2010
  53. Arizona Range News, "Sales Tax Increase", February 17, 2010
  54. The Explorer News, "Melvin 'leaning against' a vote for 1 percent", March 17, 2010
  55. KGun 9, "McCain, Kyl oppose Arizona sales-tax hike", March 9, 2010
  56. East Valley Tribune, "McCain, Kyl refuse to support sales tax hike", March 8, 2010
  57. Daily Miner, "Mills blasts sales tax hike", April 22, 2010
  58. ABC15, "Inside Arizona Politics: Anti-tax groups and Prop. 100", May 10, 2010
  59. 59.0 59.1 59.2 Arizona Central, "Arizona sales tax: Would it be temporary?", March 29, 2010
  60. ABC 15, "Hear Me Out: Should 1-cent sales tax increase be passed?", April 12, 2010
  61. Arizona Daily Star, "Con: Voting yes would boost tax burdens by about $400 a household", April 28, 2010
  62. The Arizona Republic, "Proposition 100 a step in the wrong direction", May 9, 2010
  63. Arizona Daily Sun, "Treasurer suggest refinancing", February 26, 2010
  64. Arizona Daily Star, "Sales tax hike: job generator or burden on Arizonans?", April 14, 2010
  65. Arizona Republic, "Arizona's highest-taxed town, Fredonia, balks at sales-tax hike", April 26, 2010
  66. Arizona Republic, "Sales-tax hike could weigh heavily on Cave Creek retailers", April 26, 2010
  67. myfoxphoenix.com, "Immigration May Impact Prop 100 Vote", May 14, 2010
  68. CNN.com, "What does Arizona's immigration law do?", April 23, 2010
  69. The Arizona Republic, "Let voters decide on sales-tax hike", December 7, 2009
  70. Arizona Republic, "Prop. 100 buys time for Ariz.'s recovery", May 12, 2010
  71. Arizona Daily Sun, "Goddard on sales tax hike: Principle or politics?", April 8, 2010
  72. Statepress.com, "Editorial: Penny savers", March 28, 2010
  73. Wilcox Range News, "Our View: State of Arizona will be dire if tax doesn't pass", April 28, 2010
  74. Arizona Daily Star, "Vote for Prop. 100 today, bolster Arizona's future", May 18, 2010
  75. Dailyme.com, "Editorial:Prop 100 holds hope for state's troubled schools", May 1, 2010
  76. 76.0 76.1 East Valley Tribune, "Solve AZ budget crisis without new taxes", December 18, 2009
  77. 77.0 77.1 Arizona Daily Star, "Union is tax hike's top donor", March 16, 2010
  78. Arizona Secretary of State, "Notifications of Contributions to Ballot Measure Committees"
  79. Arizona Capitol Times, "Lopsided campaigns await Prop. 100 vote", May 13, 2010
  80. The Arizona Republic, "Foes of Prop. 100 have raised only $1,215", May 15, 2010
  81. Arizona Daily Star, "Sales-tax collections by Arizona declined", May 3, 2010
  82. The Arizona Republic, "Even with a sales-tax hike, Arizona taxes would stay among lowest", May 6, 2010
  83. UANews, "Passage of Proposition 100 Will Save 13,000 Jobs, UA Study Predicts", April 8, 2010
  84. WMICentral, "Prop 100 is 100% wrong for Arizona", April 27, 2010
  85. Goldwater Institute, "Lawmakers Consider Sending One-Cent Sales Tax Increase to Voters", February 1, 2010
  86. Reason Foundation, "Options for Eliminating Arizona’s FY 2010 and FY 2011 Budget Deficits", December 10, 2009
  87. Arizona Capitol Times, "Another poll, another case of missing information", March 15, 2010
  88. National Federation of Independent Business, "NFIB Poll: Arizona Small Business Owners Rejecting Proposition 100", February 25, 2010
  89. kswt.com, "Ariz. gov., lawmakers to discuss special session", December 14, 2009
  90. The Associated Press, December 15, 2009
  91. Phoenix Business Journal, "Arizona Senate approves ballot measure for sales tax hike", February 2, 2010
  92. Bloomburg Business Week, "Ariz. Legislature sends sales tax hike to ballot", February 5, 2010
  93. Arizona Daily Sun, "House ends session; sales tax vote set for May 18", February 12, 2010
  94. The Arizona Republic, "Getting ready for statewide vote on sales tax", March 8, 2010
  95. San Pedro Valley News-Sun, "Gov. Brewer to Benson: Sales-tax hike the way to go", March 5, 2010