City of Tucson Photographic Traffic Enforcement Ban Initiative, Proposition 201 (November 2015)

Voting on Transportation
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local transportation Red light cameras Registration tax Zoning and development

A measure banning use of traffic cameras for prosecution of traffic violations was on the ballot for Tucson voters in Pima County, Arizona, on November 3, 2015. It was approved.

Proposition 201 amended the Tucson code to make inadmissible any evidence gathered from automatic red light or speed cameras. If the only evidence of a traffic violation was gathered from such cameras, the violation could not be prosecuted and the city of Tucson was barred from using such evidence in court, according to Proposition 201. The measure was designed to require the testimony of a human, on-site witness for the prosecution of traffic violations.

As of October 2015, there were eight intersections in Tucson that used red light cameras.

Election results

Tucson, Propositon 201
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		53,077	65.89%
No		27,471	34.11%

Election results from Pima County Elections Office

Text of measure

Ballot language

The following language for this measure appeared on the ballot:

“

A “YES” vote shall have the effect of amending Tucson Code Section 20-2 to provide that no violation of Articles I through VI of Tucson Code Chapter 20 occurs if evidence is gathered through use of automatic photo red light or speed cameras, and of prohibiting the City from using or contracting for traffic control technology that does not produce a human, on-site eyewitness to testify in court. A “NO” vote shall have the effect of rejecting the proposed amendment to Tucson Code Section 20-2 and maintaining the current language of Tucson Code Chapter 20.

”

Full text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Support

Supporters

The following individuals signed official arguments in favor of Proposition 201:

• John Kromko, former state legislator
• Carmine Cardamone, former state representative
• Beryl Baker, chairperson of Tucson Traffic Justice
• Lee Strubbe, community activist
• Mark Spear, systems engineer
• Dianne Patterson, Ph.D., research scientist
• John Underhill, teacher
• Kirk Wines
• Susan J. Soukup
• Gayle Hart
• Carter Rose
• Jim Hilkmeyer
• Cathy Sproul

Arguments in favor

John Kromko, "John Kromko - red light camera scam," June 18, 2013

Supporters of the proposition argued that the city's interest in using traffic cameras was driven not by safety concerns, but rather by the increased revenue brought in by issuing more citations. Additionally, they did not believe that collisions had decreased due to use of the cameras. Rather, they believed that the decreased accident rates at intersections with traffic cameras were the result of drivers avoiding those intersections.

Former state legislator and anti-traffic cam advocate John Kromko spoke out in support of the measure in front of the city council, rebutting claims that traffic cameras had decreased collision rates:

“	Every independent study we’ve been able to discover shows no decrease in accidents, no improvements.	”
—John Kromko

Kromko and his group, Traffic Justice, had attempted to put a similar piece of legislation on the ballot in 2013, but failed to gather the requisite number of signatures.

The full text of the official ballot arguments in favor of the proposition can be read here.

Opposition

Opponents

The following individuals have made arguments against Proposition 201:

• Roberto Villaseñor, Tucson Chief of Police
• Regina Romero, Tucson City Council member
• Richard Fimbres, Tucson City Council member
• Jonathan Rothschild, Tucson Mayor

Arguments against

Opponents of the measure cited public safety as a reason to oppose the measure and support the continued use of traffic cameras in the prosecution of traffic violations. They argued that vehicular collisions take a large toll on Tucson, in terms of monetary cost and loss of lives. Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villaseñor emphasized these problems when making a statement on the proposition to the Tucson City Council:

“	Tucson had been ranked as fourth in the nation by the insurance industry for highway safety for traffic-collision fatalities related to red-light violations.	”
—Roberto Villaseñor

Traffic cams, opponents claimed, helped to reduce these problems. Collisions at the eight Tucson intersections with traffic cameras had decreased significantly, and 85 percent of those who received a citation from one of the cameras never received a second citation. The proposition's opponents claimed that these statistics indicated that traffic cameras have a positive effect on the city.

Additionally, opponents cited the costliness of replicating the cameras' effect with surveillance by uniformed officers, which they claimed would be prohibitively expensive.

Some opponents of the proposition agreed that there were flaws in the city's implementation of traffic cams, but also believed that the cameras have a significant potential for accident reduction, and so argued for reform of traffic laws rather than a ban on the cameras.

City councilwoman Regina Romero voiced her support for continued use of traffic cameras:

“	I know that people consider this an annoyance — I feel this is also safety issue.	”
—Regina Romero

City councilman Richard Fimbres also spoke out in opposition to the measure:

“	This program is not about generating revenue. It is about saving lives.	”
—Richard Fimbres

The full text of the official ballot argument in opposition to the proposition can be read here.

Editorials

The editorial board of the Arizona Daily Star endorsed a "No" vote on Proposition 201. The members of the board argued that the traffic system ought to be reformed, but that traffic cameras decrease the number of collisions that occur, and should be kept. The board wrote:

“	The way the system is set up is flawed and must be improved. But we believe the cameras deter reckless driving and should remain. We urge a “no” vote on the ban. The proposed ban is on the ballot because of a petition drive by voters long-frustrated with the program. Those opponents correctly point out that innocent drivers are snared because of how state law defines where an “intersection” begins. This is especially a problem at large intersections. One solution would be to paint these intersections so drivers clearly understand what’s legal and not. Another would be to lengthen the yellow-light cycle to give drivers more time to clear the intersection. And then there is the matter of fines. Run a red light in the city of Tucson and the fine is $335. Do the same thing in Phoenix and it’s $245 and in Pima County $283. Tucson is also the highest in each of three categories of speed violations. The City Council should review the rates and justify the amounts. Police chief Roberto Villaseñor recently said that there were 57 collisions last fiscal year at the eight intersections with cameras. There were 188 in 2006 — the year before the cameras were installed. Crashes are down in general, so we don’t argue that the difference is entirely attributable to the cameras. But we know this with certainty: When we see a camera or a radar van, we take a look around and at our speedometer. We think about safety. That’s why the cameras have value and why we urge you to vote “no” on Proposition 201.	”
—Arizona Daily Star editorial board

The editorial board of the Tucson Weekly also endorsed a "No" vote on Proposition 201. The members of the board asserted that most citations issued by the cameras were appropriate, and that it was rare for unearned tickets to be issued. The board wrote:

“	Nobody likes getting a ticket, but the installation of cameras at key intersections in the city has resulted in a dramatic reduction of accidents—and that means people haven't been seriously injured or even killed. Sure, we've heard all the stories about people who have gotten tickets because the cameras malfunctioned or they had some one-of-a-kind incident that required them to somehow be out in the intersection when the light turned red. But those anomalies don't represent the fact that most drivers who are cited got their tickets because they were trying to beat the light. This town is full of people who run red lights, make lunatic lane changes, text while driving and otherwise speed along like oblivious jerks. If the cameras force some people to drive a little more carefully and pop the jerks who put other lives at risk, we're OK with that.	”
—Tucson Weekly editorial board

Reports and analysis

Arizona Public Media

Arizona Public Media, "Metro Week - September 18, 2015," accessed September 18, 2015

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in Arizona

John Kromko, a former Arizona legislator, organized a petition drive for Prop. 201, collecting 55,000 signatures in favor of the proposition in order to put it on the ballot. The petition was submitted to the City Clerk on June 29, 2015.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Tucson Photographic Traffic Enforcement Ban Initiative Proposition 201. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

City of Tucson Photographic Traffic Enforcement Ban Initiative, Proposition 201 (November 2015) - Google News

See also

• Local red light cameras on the ballot
• Local law enforcement on the ballot
• Pima County, Arizona ballot measures
• November 3, 2015 ballot measures in Arizona
• Tucson, Arizona municipal elections, 2015

External links

Suggest a link

• Tucson Elections Department website