Arizona Standing in Civil Actions, Proposition 102 (2006)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 10:41, 11 July 2011 by Cl1987 (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Arizona Constitution
Flag of Arizona.png
Preamble
Articles
1234566.178910111213141516171819202122252627282930
Arizona Proposition 102
HCR 2001
Year 2006
Subject Illegal immigrants receiving punitive damages
Sponsored by: Arizona House
Opposed by: Arizona Farm Bureau
Current Status
Status Passed
Yes Votes 689,042
No Votes 246,230
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, where it was approved. It prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving punitive damages in state lawsuits filed in Arizona.[1]

2006 election results

Standing in Civil Actions
Yes or no Votes Percentage
Approveda Yes 1,102,237 74.2%
No 382,714 25.8%
Total votes 1,484,951 100%

Text of the proposal

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.

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 for the campaign against the measure:[2]

  • 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

External links


Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found