Arizona Strict Compliance Initiative Process Referendum (2018)

Arizona Strict Compliance Initiative Process Referendum
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Direct democracy measures
Status Not on the ballot
Type Referendum	Origin Citizens
List of Arizona measuresArizona Proposition 125Arizona Proposition 127Arizona Proposition 305Arizona Proposition 306Submit

The Arizona Strict Compliance Initiative Process Referendum was not on the ballot in Arizona as a veto referendum on November 6, 2018.

The measure was designed to repeal House Bill 2244 (HB 2244), which (a) required that initiatives be strictly construed; (b) required that persons using the initiative process strictly comply with constitutional and statutory requirements; (c) required the secretary of state to provide a sample initiative petition that meets the requirements of strict compliance; and (d) required the secretary of state to publish a handbook each election cycle on interpreting administrating, applying, and enforcing laws related to initiative, referendum, and recall. A yes vote on the referendum would have been to uphold HB 2244, while a no vote would have been to repeal HB 2244.

The committee Voters of Arizona, which sponsored this referendum, also sponsored a referendum against House Bill 2404, which was designed to prohibit paying circulators according to the number of signatures collected.

On July 14, 2017, Voters of Arizona announced that it would suspend its paid signature gathering efforts for this referendum, focusing resources on challenging HB 2244 in court instead.

Text of measure

Full text

HB 2244 added new sections to Arizona Revised Statutes. The following text was added by HB 2244:

19-102.01. Initiative petitions; standard of review A. Constitutional and statutory requirements for statewide initiative measures must be strictly construed and persons using the initiative process must strictly comply with those constitutional and statutory requirements. B. The secretary of state shall make available a sample initiative petition that strictly complies with the requirements of Section 19-121. Any committee that uses the sample initiative petition provided by the secretary of state shall be presumed to have strictly complied with the requirements of Section 19-121. 19-119.02. Initiative, referendum and recall handbook; secretary of state Each election cycle the secretary of state shall prepare and publish an initiative, referendum and recall handbook that provides guidance on interpreting, administering, applying and enforcing the laws relating to initiative, referendum and recall. The secretary of state shall make the handbook available to the public on the secretary of state's website. Sec. 3. Legislative findings; purpose A. The legislature finds that: 1. The Constitution of Arizona provides voters with the ability to propose new laws or constitutional amendments through the initiative process. 2. Courts have required strict compliance where a legislative tool is considered an "'extraordinary' power . . . that permits a 'minority to hold up . . . legislation [that] may well represent the wishes of the majority.'" See Perini Land & Dev. Co. v. Pima Cty., 170 Ariz. 380, 383 (1992) (quoting W. Devcor, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, 168 Ariz. 426, 429 (1991)); see also Direct Sellers Ass'n v. McBrayer, 109 Ariz. 3, 5 (1972). 3. Arizona's Voter Protection Act, enacted in 1998 as Proposition 105, requires a three-fourths vote to amend any voter-approved initiative. 4. The Voter Protection Act greatly impairs the ability of the legislature, representing the will of the people, to implement changes to or corrective measures for voter-approved initiatives. 5. The initiative process has evolved into an extraordinary power, effectively holding up and binding the will of the legislature and future majorities of the people by preventing the enactment of new laws and amendments that may well represent the wishes of the current majority of the people. See Perini Land & Dev. Co. v. Pima Cty., 170 Ariz. 380, 382-83 (1992); see also Direct Sellers Ass'n v. McBrayer, 109 Ariz. 3, 5 (1972). 6. Strict compliance with the constitutional and statutory requirements for the initiative process and in the application and enforcement of those requirements provides the surest method for safeguarding the integrity and accuracy of the initiative process, while still recognizing the historical importance of initiatives in this state. Cf. W. Devcor, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, 168 Ariz. 426, 429 (1991) (citing Cottonwood Dev. v. Foothills Area Coal. of Tucson, Inc., 134 Ariz. 46, 49 (1982)). B. Based on the findings provided in subsection A of this section, the legislature's purpose in adopting this act includes the following: 1. Requiring that statewide initiative measures strictly comply with constitutional and statutory requirements. 2. Requiring that persons circulating and submitting initiative petitions be held to the same standard of constitutional and statutory compliance as those persons circulating and submitting referendum petitions.

Referendum sponsors

Voters of Arizona led the campaign to get the referendum placed on the ballot. Grant Woods (R), former state attorney general, and Paul Johnson (I), former mayor of Phoenix, initiated the campaign.

Background

House Bill 2244 (2017) timeline

See also: Changes in 2017 to Arizona laws governing ballot measures

House Bill 2244 (HB 2244) was introduced into the Arizona State Legislature during the 2017 legislative session. Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (R-12) was the bill's lead sponsor. However, the introduced bill related to electronic reports on concealed weapons permits. The Arizona House of Representatives passed this version of the bill, which did not address the initiative process, on February 22, 2017.

On March 16, 2017, the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed an amendment to strike everything from the bill and add language to require ballot initiatives to be strictly construed and people involved in the initiative process to strictly comply with constitutional and statutory law. The committee recommended the bill's passage in a six to four vote, with Republicans in favor and Democrats against. Rep. Steve B. Montenegro (R-13) proposed two amendments: (1) to require the secretary of state to provide a sample petition that meets the requirements of strict compliance; and (2) to require the secretary of state to publish a handbook on the initiative process laws each election cycle.

The Arizona Senate adopted all three amendments, transforming HB 2244 into its final form. On April 12, 2017, the Senate approved the bill 16 to 14. Of the chamber's 17 Republicans, 16 voted for the bill. Sen. Kate Brophy McGee (R-28) voted against HB 2244. All Democrats voted against the bill.

Breakdown of Senate votes on HB 2244
Party Affiliation	Yes	No	Abstain	Total
Democrat	0	13	0	13
Republican	16	1	0	17
Total	16	14	0	30

HB 2244 was sent to the House as a rewritten bill addressing a new topic on April 12, 2017. The House of Representatives took up HB 2244 on April 13, 2017, passing the bill 34 to 23 with three members not voting. All but one Republican, who did not vote, voted to pass the bill. All but two Democrats, who did not vote, voted against HB 2244.

Breakdown of House votes on HB 2404
Party Affiliation	Yes	No	Abstain	Total
Democrat	0	23	2	25
Republican	34	0	1	35
Total	34	23	3	60

Gov. Doug Ducey (R) signed HB 2244 into law on April 14, 2017. He said the bill was "common-sense legislation (that) preserves the integrity of the process by ensuring that those seeking to make lasting changes to our laws comply with current laws."

Lawsuit against HB 2244

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Substantive constitutionality; whether the law targeted by the veto referendum—HB 2244—is constitutional
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing HB 2244 to go into effect
Plaintiff(s): Voters of Arizona	Defendant(s): State of Arizona
Plaintiff argument: HB 2244 requiring strict compliance with initiative processes would cause a significant increase in the difficulty and cost of a successful initiative or referendum petition such that it violates the state constitution's guarantee of the initiative and referendum power.	Defendant argument: Plaintiffs have no standing to challenge the law since no signatures have been thrown out because of it, and the increase in difficulty and cost is not enough to violate the state constitution, rather the requirement would guarantee the integrity of the initiative process.

  Source: Arizona Capitol Times

Besides the veto referendum effort against HB 2244, Voters of Arizona filed a lawsuit against the bill in Maricopa County Superior Court. Judge Sherry Stephens heard arguments on July 12, 2017, and said she would make a ruling by August 4, 2017—five days before the law was set to go into effect. In the lawsuit, members and representatives of Voters of Arizona argued that the law requiring strict compliance would result in substantial increases in the difficulty and the cost of initiative petition drives, including efforts that were already ongoing. They argued that the increased difficulty and cost was great enough to violate the right of the people to the initiative and referendum process as guaranteed in the state constitution. David Cantelme, the attorney defending the legislature's bill, argued that the increase in the difficulty and cost is not great enough to violate a constitutional right. Moreover, the two sides argued about whether or not any of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the bill. To have standing, plaintiffs needed to show that they had been harmed. Cantelme argued that, since no initiative petitions had been invalidated or thrown off the ballot because of HB 2244, no one had been harmed, and none of the plaintiffs had standing. The plaintiffs argued that, since the list of plaintiffs included proponents of then-ongoing initiative petitions, they had standing because increased difficulty and cost for their efforts would be required in anticipation of strict technical scrutiny under HB 2244.

Judge Sherry Stephens delayed her ruling until August 8, 2017. She ruled in favor of the defendants, concluding that Voters of Arizona did not have standing before the court. Judge Stephens said an individual "must demonstrate that he is realistically threatened by a repetition of a constitutional violation." This means that an initiative campaign would need to be affected by HB 2244, which had not happened because the law wasn't in effect during Voters of Arizona's campaign.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Arizona

In Arizona, the number of signatures required for a veto referendum to be certified for the ballot is equivalent to five percent of the votes cast for governor at the last gubernatorial election. For 2018 veto referendums, the number of valid signatures required was 75,321. Proponents of the referendum have until 90 days after the 2017 legislative session adjourns to collect signatures. As the 2017 legislative session adjourned on May 10, 2017, petitioners had until August 8, 2017, to collect 75,321 signatures.

If 75,321 or more signatures were verified, the enforcement of House Bill 2244 would have been put on hold until voters addressed the bill in 2018.

A petition for the referendum was filed with the secretary of state's office on May 11, 2017.

On July 14, 2017, Voters of Arizona announced that it would suspend its paid signature gathering efforts for this referendum, focusing resources on challenging HB 2244 in court instead. A lack of paid circulators made the success of any initiative or veto referendum petition much less likely. Joe Yuhas, a consultant for Voters of Arizona, said, "Given our limited resources ... we couldn't sustain a paid petition drive and litigation so we had to make a choice. With litigation proceeding this week, which we're optimistic about, we have to deploy those resources in a way that would be most effective." No signatures were turned in for the referendum on August 8, 2017.

See also

Suggest a link

• Arizona 2018 ballot measures
• 2018 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in Arizona
• Changes in 2017 to Arizona laws governing ballot measures