Difference between revisions of "Local ballot measures, Arizona"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(2013)
(2013)
Line 42: Line 42:
 
<h2 style="margin:7px 0 0 0; background:#CCCCFF; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; text-align:left; color: black; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Local elections</h2>
 
<h2 style="margin:7px 0 0 0; background:#CCCCFF; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; text-align:left; color: black; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Local elections</h2>
 
===2013===
 
===2013===
* [[March 12, 2013 ballot measures in Arizona|March 12]] • [[May 21, 2013 ballot measures in Arizona|May 21]] • [[November 5, 2013 ballot measures in Arizona|November 5]]
+
* [[March 12, 2013 ballot measures in Arizona|March 12]] • [[May 21, 2013 ballot measures in Arizona|May 21]]• [[August 27, 2013 ballot measures in Arizona|August 27]] • [[November 5, 2013 ballot measures in Arizona|November 5]]
  
 
===2012===
 
===2012===

Revision as of 14:24, 18 September 2013


Pension Hotspots: Ventura County pension reformers see first offensive from unions Jun 27, 2014

By Josh Altic

The Pension Hotspots Report is a monthly publication about local pension reform efforts.

As pension reform initiatives are scheduled for the November ballot in Phoenix, Arizona, Ventura County, California, and Pacific Grove, California, proponents weather the first wave of attacks from unions and other reform opponents. Meanwhile, bankrupt cities maneuver around the unassailable CalPERS, seeking to survive as the state pension fund superpower insists that pension debt is impervious to chapter nine.

As of June 27, 2014, seven pension-related measures have been proposed. Three of these were approved, one was defeated, and the remaining three are pending. A court decision on June 26, 2014, removed one initiative from the ballot in Pacific Grove, leaving two measures scheduled for voter decisions.

...more local news

School bond and tax votes

Arizona requires school districts to hold elections for issuing new bonds or to override a school district budget. School districts are given up to five percent to override on a school district budget. Any override over five percent needs voter approval. Override is similar to exceeding a levy limit which is commonly called in other states. Arizona laws require school districts to have a substitute budget on hand in the event a budget override measure gets defeated. Arizona also has a debt limit protected by the Arizona Constitution with regular school districts having a six percent debt limit while unified school districts have a thirty percent limit based on the district's total value of taxable property.

Prescott Controversy

A controversy arose in the city of Prescott in late 2009 when residents tried to have an initiative placed on the November 3, 2009 ballot. The issue stemmed from the necessary signatures needed to put the initiative up for a public vote. City Clerk Elizabeth Burke told petition gatherers that they needed to get 2,058 signatures. This number represented 15 percent of the voters in the previous election. However, Gary Kidd, the City Attorney, disputed that the effort required at least 25 percent of voters' signatures.

The dispute began when officials pointed out that there was conflicting initiative procedures between the Arizona Constitution and the state statute. The initiative could appear on the November ballot, but legal action could be taken afterwards.[1]

A letter from Councilwoman Lora Lopas can be read here, along with other case-related document. In her letter, Lopas described her discontent with the way the situation on this issue was handled.

Laws governing

Az county map.png












Local elections

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009



Arizona counties

ApacheCochiseCoconinoGilaGrahamGreenleeLa PazMaricopaMohaveNavajoPimaPinalSanta CruzYavapaiYuma


References