Study carefully before voting

Our view: Titles may belie initiatives' intent

You'll experience direct democracy on Nov. 4 when you decide the fate of complex, statewide ballot propositions and several in local municipalities and school districts.

The propositions are a result of Arizona's populist Constitution, which includes the right to amend it through initiative and referendum.

Arizona citizens have the right to propose and approve constitutional changes through the initiative process: Suggest a law and gather signatures to get it on the ballot for voters to consider. Six of the eight statewide propositions are initiatives.

Likewise, the Legislature can refer measures to the voters for a decision through the referendum process. In this election Proposition 102, which defines marriage, was referred to the voters by the Legislature.

Arizona's populist, participatory spirit does not always evolve into solid public policy. It is subject to abuses.

The initiative process, especially gathering signatures, is costly.

The Constitution's populist framers probably envisioned a passionate grass-roots army of volunteers marching door to door collecting signatures. The founders also saw the initiative as a way to reduce the impact of special interests. However, exactly the opposite often happens.

For an initiative to be on the Arizona ballot, more than 153,000 valid signatures are required. That army of volunteers working nights and weekends is unlikely to gather the necessary votes.

Thus, an initiative organizer gathers money and hires a company that solicits the names and signatures of registered voters for a price. You've probably been approached by them on some streets and at events. Signature-gathering companies pay contractors about $1 to $2 per signature.

If the Secretary of State determines a sample of signatures is valid, the initiative goes on the ballot. This year, three initiatives failed to make it onto the ballot due to lack of valid signatures.
The initiative process is big business. Look at Proposition 200, regarding payday loans. The big-monied predatory-lending industry was able to gather signatures and mount a sweet, and very misleading, home-and-hearth ad campaign.

The language in some initiatives is so obtuse that it will take a cadre of lawyers and judges to sort it out.

The proponents of Proposition 201, the Homeowners Bill of Rights, say that it would only apply to new construction and that's what the secretary of state's summary indicates. However, the opponents say the multi-page initiative never actually specifies that it applies only to new homes. Proposition 101, the "Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act" uses broad language that risks causing unintended consequences.

Send in the lawyers.

The cozy, innocuous-sounding titles of some initiatives may belie their real impact. Proposition 200 — payday lending "reform" — does little to help consumers and everything to help the industry by ditching the sunset clause that would kick the industry out of our state in 2010.

As we've said before, we believe in the initiative process. We also believe that future measures must be written succinctly and clearly with honest titles.

Constitutional abuse
We also believe the process to amend the Constitution is overused.

The Constitution's 28,000 or so words define the framework for the government's operation and also outline individual rights.

As we said in 2006, the Constitution, as with most state constitutions, is more detailed than our nation's, and changes are inevitable.

However our Constitution is becoming a bulletin board because of efforts to tack on issues du jour without looking at the long-term effects or attempting to resolve problems that are non-existent. If an issue is real, it can often be resolved better by statute.

We believe that amendments at the state level must address long-term issues, must stand the test and scrutiny of time, and must not be redundant to state statute or breach the integrity of our Constitution.

The proposed amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot — forever banning a real estate transfer tax (Proposition 100); solving the non-existent problem of health care choice (Proposition 101); defining marriage, an issue voters rejected in 2006 that is already defined in statute; and the give-the-voters-who-don't-bother-to-go-to-the-polls-a-vote measure (Proposition 105) — don't meet those standards.

We believe that amending the Constitution should be done prudently with the highest respect for our laws, people and future. The everyday details should be dealt with through statutes passed by the Legislature.

Our recommendations
We studied the propositions, poring through materials and talking with dozens of people on both sides of the issues. We often invited both sides to present their views at the same time to our editorial board.

As we evaluated each issue, we stripped away the politics and the hidden agendas and judged each proposition on its merits.

As you review our endorsements on the ballot propositions, we strongly encourage you to study them seriously, consider their outcomes and make an informed decision Nov. 4.