Arizona Standing in Civil Actions, Proposition 102 (2006)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 17:09, 30 December 2013 by Josh Altic (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on Immigration
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Measures
Arizona Constitution
Flag of Arizona.png

Arizona Proposition 102, also known as the Standing in Civil Actions Act, was on the November 7, 2006 statewide ballot in Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. It was approved. It prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving punitive damages in state lawsuits filed in Arizona.[1]

Election results

Standing in Civil Actions
Approveda Yes 1,102,237 74.2%
Election results from Arizona Elections Department.

Text of measure

The language that appeared on the ballot:

A person who wins a civil lawsuit may receive two types of damages-compensatory and punitive. Compensatory damages are awarded to compensate the injured party for the injuries sustained by making good or replacing the loss caused by the injury. Punitive damages are awarded in excess of compensatory damages to punish the person sued for a serious wrong and to discourage others from engaging in similar wrongful conduct.

Proposition 102 would prohibit a person who wins a civil lawsuit from receiving punitive damages if the person is present in this state in violation of federal immigration law related to improper entry.[2]

Supporting Arguments

The Honorable Russell Pearce, Arizona House of Representatives, Mesa stated:

Illegal aliens can not be allowed to exploit our court system. Winners in a civil lawsuit receive two types of rewards: They can be compensated for their losses or they may receive punitive damages in addition to compensation. This referendum properly denies illegal immigrants from receiving punitive damages or rewards in any civil lawsuit. It makes no sense for a person who breaks the law by illegally entering and remaining illegally in the United States to profit from a civil proceeding. Plain and simple: courts of law should not reward lawbreakers. We discourage illegal immigration when it is broadly known that the courts of Arizona will not overlook any person's illegal status. By enacting this referendum we discourage illegal aliens from suing American citizens with the expectation of receiving big rewards.

Opposing Arguments

Kevin G. Rogers, President, Arizona Farm Bureau, Mesa Stated:

We understand and share the mounting frustration Arizona citizens have regarding the failure of the federal government to act in a responsible and comprehensive fashion regarding border security and immigration. We tend to want to lash out and do something.

This measure would block undocumented immigrants from being able to obtain punitive damages. Punitive damages are reserved for gross negligence or willful and malicious conduct. This proposition says that for a certain class of people, gross negligence against them can be excused.

We think most Arizonans would consider that unfair and look beyond their frustration with federal lawmakers that are not adequately dealing with border security, enforcement and visa reform and vote NO on this proposition.

Campaign finance

Donors to the campaign against the measure:[3]

  • Fairness and Accountability in Insurance Reform (FAIR): $138,665
  • Campaign for Community Change Oppose Propositions 100, HCR 2028-102, HCR 2001-103 & 300, SCR 1033: $61,300

Total: $199,965

See also

Suggest a link

External links


  1. Arizona 2006 election results
  2. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  3. Follow the Money, "Donors"