PGI logo cropped.png
Congressional Millionaire’s Club
The Personal Gain Index shines a light on how members of Congress benefit during their tenure.





Difference between revisions of "Arizona Signature Filing Amendment, Proposition 112 (2010)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - ""," to ","")
m (Text replace - "," retrieved" to "," accessed")
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 58: Line 58:
  
 
* Linda Turley-Hansen, syndicated columnist and former Phoenix TV anchor, advised a 'yes' vote on the measure in an editorial revealing her recommendations for all the propositions on the November ballot.<ref> [http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/article_3d4b7630-d326-11df-a1b7-001cc4c03286.html ''East Valley Tribune'', "Voters: Awaken and prepare for heavy-duty ballot propositions," October 10, 2010]</ref>
 
* Linda Turley-Hansen, syndicated columnist and former Phoenix TV anchor, advised a 'yes' vote on the measure in an editorial revealing her recommendations for all the propositions on the November ballot.<ref> [http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/article_3d4b7630-d326-11df-a1b7-001cc4c03286.html ''East Valley Tribune'', "Voters: Awaken and prepare for heavy-duty ballot propositions," October 10, 2010]</ref>
* The Pima County Democratic Party recommended a 'yes' vote on the measure.<ref> [http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/10/pcdp-ballot-measure-recommendations.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BlogForArizona+%28Blog+For+Arizona%29 ''Blog For Arizona'', "PCDP Ballot Measure Recommendations," Retrieved October 18, 2010]</ref>
+
* The Pima County Democratic Party recommended a 'yes' vote on the measure.<ref> [http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/10/pcdp-ballot-measure-recommendations.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BlogForArizona+%28Blog+For+Arizona%29 ''Blog For Arizona'', "PCDP Ballot Measure Recommendations," accessed October 18, 2010]</ref>
  
 
* [[Arizona State Senate|State Senator]] [[Ron Gould]] and [[Arizona House of Representatives|State Representative]] [[Nancy G. McLain]] both voiced their support for the measure.<ref> [http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1&ArticleID=40650 ''Kingman Daily Miner'', "Officials sound off on upcoming propositions," October 14, 2010]</ref>
 
* [[Arizona State Senate|State Senator]] [[Ron Gould]] and [[Arizona House of Representatives|State Representative]] [[Nancy G. McLain]] both voiced their support for the measure.<ref> [http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1&ArticleID=40650 ''Kingman Daily Miner'', "Officials sound off on upcoming propositions," October 14, 2010]</ref>
Line 104: Line 104:
 
==Analysis, reports and studies==
 
==Analysis, reports and studies==
 
===Legislative analysis===
 
===Legislative analysis===
A [[Arizona Legislature|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:<ref name=pamphlet> [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop112.htm ''Arizona Secretary of State'', "Publicity Pamphlet," Retrieved September 21, 2010]</ref>
+
A [[Arizona Legislature|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:<ref name=pamphlet> [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop112.htm ''Arizona Secretary of State'', "Publicity Pamphlet," accessed September 21, 2010]</ref>
  
 
:''Proposition 112 would amend the Arizona Constitution to require that initiative petitions be filed at least six months before the date on which the measure will be voted on. Under current law, initiative petitions must be filed at least four months before the date on which the measure will be voted on.''
 
:''Proposition 112 would amend the Arizona Constitution to require that initiative petitions be filed at least six months before the date on which the measure will be voted on. Under current law, initiative petitions must be filed at least four months before the date on which the measure will be voted on.''

Latest revision as of 07:34, 19 May 2014

Voting on
Elections and Campaigns
Campaignsandelections.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Arizona Constitution
Flag of Arizona.png
Preamble
Articles
1234566.178910111213141516171819202122252627282930
The Arizona Signature Filing Amendment, also known as Proposition 112, or HCR 2018, was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in the state of Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. It was narrowly defeated.

The measure, if it had been enacted by a simple majority of Arizona voters, would have changed the current petition drive deadline to be two months earlier than the current deadline. Initiative organizers would have had to turn in those signatures with the Secretary of State by that date. As of 2010, 230,046 signatures were needed to have an initiated constitutional amendment considered for the ballot, while 153,364 signatures were needed to have an initiated state statute to be considered for the ballot. The deadline to turn in those signatures was July 1, 2010.[1]

Aftermath

Following the election, the measure's results were scheduled to be recounted, as there was a narrow vote margin. According to the Arizona Secretary of State's website, the vote was essentially split, with the site listing the 'no' and 'yes' votes at both 50 percent. The recount would cost taxpayers between $150,000 to $200,000, according to state elections officials.

Only two other known statewide recounts have been held in Arizona, one in a 1994 Democratic primary and the other in 1916, when there was a legal challenge for the position of governor. The recount took place after November 29, when official results were released.[2]

The measure was officially voted down, as the recount was concluded on December 20, 2010. It was found that the measure was rejected by a total of 194 total votes.[3][4]

Election results

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

Official election results were:

Proposition 112 (Signature Filing)
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No792,85850.1%
Yes 792,664 49.9%

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:[5]

A "yes" vote shall have the effect of changing the initiative filing deadline from four months to six months prior to each general election.

A "no" vote shall have the effect of preserving the current initiative filing deadline.[6]

Short title

The short title of the measure, according to the Arizona Secretary of State's website, read as follows:[7]

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article IV, Part 1, Section 1, Constitution of Arizona; relating to initiative petitions.[6]

Summary

The summary of the amendment read as follows:[8]

Proposing an amendment to the constitution of Arizona; amending article IV, part 1, section 1, Constitution of Arizona; relating to initiative petitions.[6]

Constitutional changes

Arizona Signature Filing Amendment (2010), Constitutional changes

The measure was proposed to amend Article 4, Part 1, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution.[8]

Support

Supporters

  • Representative Chad Campbell stated that the measure would allow enough time for lawsuits challenging the measure and other debates to occur before the measure appeared on the ballot for voters. According to Campbell, the time frame in place didn't allow that, "The proposition allows more time for an honest debate about the issues, at no cost to the taxpayer."[10]
  • Linda Turley-Hansen, syndicated columnist and former Phoenix TV anchor, advised a 'yes' vote on the measure in an editorial revealing her recommendations for all the propositions on the November ballot.[11]
  • The Pima County Democratic Party recommended a 'yes' vote on the measure.[12]

Arguments

Arguments that were made in support of the measure included:[15]

  • Supporters stated that the short time frame to turn in signatures made it difficult to challenge petitions.
  • Supporters also stated that the short time frame also added stress to county recorders.
  • The Arizona Farm Bureau stated that the measure would raise the standard for initiatives to make it to the ballot. According to the Arizona Farm Bureau, “It is hard to hold the process or our elected representatives accountable when citizens create policy. Through initiatives, narrow ideas can become a tyrannical majority, as there is neither nuance nor compromise as in legislative debate.”

Opposition

Arguments

The following arguments were made in opposition to the measure:[15]

  • Opponents argued that the state had a long history of direct democracy with citizen initiatives, and that the measure would restrict citizen voices.
  • Other opponents point out that there was no problem with the initiative time frame and that the measure was unnecessary.

Campaign contributions

Support

The following contributions were made in favor of the measure:

Contributor Amount
Sundt Companies Inc $5,000
Coleman Dahm $4,987
Keane Creative $4,687
Keane Creative $4,687
Arizona Business Coalition $2,500
Arizona Firefighters $2,500
Government for Arizona's Second Century $100

Analysis, reports and studies

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:[5]

Proposition 112 would amend the Arizona Constitution to require that initiative petitions be filed at least six months before the date on which the measure will be voted on. Under current law, initiative petitions must be filed at least four months before the date on which the measure will be voted on.

Media endorsements

See also: Endorsements of Arizona ballot measures, 2010

Support

  • The Arizona Daily Star supported Proposition 112, saying, "Would change the petition deadline to give election officials more time to validate signatures before election deadlines."[16]
  • The Yuma Sun stated that the measure is a "sensible request," arguing in an editorial, "It is not a significant hardship to ask those who want to put these serious questions on the ballot to provide an extra two months to process petitions and deal with any legal challenges."[17]
  • The East Valley Tribune recommended a 'yes' vote on the measure, stating, "This extends the deadline for filing petitions from four to six months prior to an election — which gives election officials more time to verify signatures."[18]
  • The Arizona Republic supported the measure, "The Legislature unanimously approved putting the measure on the ballot. Support comes from both the right and left. Voters should approve Proposition 112's sensible deadlines.[19]
  • Goldwater State was for the measure, stating, "At first glance this seems like a mere restriction on the citizens' initiative power. However, the four-month deadline has proved to be unworkable, not allowing time for court hearings if signature counts are in question."[20]

Opposition

  • The Desert Lamp stated in an editorial about the measure: "The passage of this measure favors the gubbamint over the citizen. Though maudlin sniveling about civic duties and the democratic are almost as lethally cloying as cats in sweaters, this measure is the ASUA problem on a grand(ish) scale: too many signatures, too little time."[21]

Path to the ballot

The ballot measure was referred to the November ballot by a majority vote of the Arizona House of Representatives and the Arizona State Senate. Arizona is one of ten states allow a referred amendment to go on the ballot after a majority vote in one session of the state's legislature.

See also

External links

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

Additional reading

References

  1. Arizona Capitol Times, "Legislature sends nine referrals to ballot – initiative still coming," May 3, 2010
  2. Arizona Republic, "Arizona Prop. 112 recount triggered," November 16, 2010
  3. Arizona Republic, "Arizona recount: Prop 112 defeated by 194 votes," December 20, 2010
  4. East Valley Tribune, "Recount results confirm defeat of Prop. 112," December 20, 2010
  5. 5.0 5.1 Arizona Secretary of State, "Publicity Pamphlet," accessed September 21, 2010
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  7. Arizona Secretary of State, "2010 General Election:Ballot measures"
  8. 8.0 8.1 Arizona Legislature, "House Concurrent Resolution 2018"
  9. Tucson Citizen, "Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry endorses five ballot measures," June 25, 2010
  10. Tucson Sentinel, "Prop. 112 seeks to move up initiative filing deadline," October 1, 2010
  11. East Valley Tribune, "Voters: Awaken and prepare for heavy-duty ballot propositions," October 10, 2010
  12. Blog For Arizona, "PCDP Ballot Measure Recommendations," accessed October 18, 2010
  13. Kingman Daily Miner, "Officials sound off on upcoming propositions," October 14, 2010
  14. Inside Tucson Business, "Pro-business endorsements from Tucson chamber of commerce," October 22, 2010
  15. 15.0 15.1 Morrison Institute, "2010: Proposition 112, Initiative Filing Deadline," September 3, 2010
  16. Arizona Daily Star, "The Star's recommendations on state, local propositions," October 28, 2010
  17. Yuma Sun, "Extra time for initiative petitions sensible request," October 10, 2010
  18. East Valley Tribune, "Endorsements: Ballot propositions," October 24, 2010
  19. Arizona Republic, "Allow more time to verify petitions," September 24, 2010
  20. Goldwater State, "Ballot question summaries and recommendations part 1: Propositions 106-113, the Constitutional amendments," November 1, 2010
  21. Desert Lamp, "The Desert Lamp’s Ballot Proposition Endorsements," October 20, 2010