Voters will have a full slate of candidates to wade through when they hit the polls in November, but they will have a shallower pool of ballot initiatives than in past election years.
Nine citizens’ initiatives have been filed at the Secretary of State’s Office, and another two measures were referred to the ballot by the Legislature or legislative committees. Voters in certain districts also will decide whether to unify nearby school districts.
If all nine of the citizens’ initiatives qualify for the ballot, it would mean voters will decide 11 measures on Nov. 4. That’s considerably fewer than in the 2006 election when voters found themselves neck-deep in 12 citizens’ initiatives and each of seven ballot measures referred by the Legislature.
Arizona voters have faced an average of 14 ballot measures in the past five elections.
The petitions for all nine of the 2008 citizens’ initiatives will be inspected to verify that they contain the necessary number of valid signatures to qualify. Any initiative without the adequate number of signatures from registered voters in Arizona will not be on the ballot.
The two ballot referrals include a proposal to ban gay marriage in Arizona by amending the state Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and another that seeks to increase salaries for state legislators to $30,000 per year.
The deadline to file initiative petitions was July 3. Here’s a brief description of those that may qualify, along with descriptions of the three ballot referendums.
Arizona Civil Rights
While some ballot initiative committees issue press releases and hold conferences to announce they will be turning in signatures, supporters of the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative tried to avoid the fanfare.
At 8 a.m. on July 3, supporters slipped into the Secretary of State’s Office to file what they claimed to be more than 330,000 signatures on a proposal to ban the use of racial and gender-based preference programs.
Max McPhail, a director for the initiative, said the action was done without alerting the press in order to avoid triggering a scene. Protesters had been harassing signature gatherers, he said.
“We wanted to avoid a melee and get them submitted,” said McPhail, noting his belief that opponents from a group calling itself BAMN — By Any Means Necessary — had been staking out the Secretary of State’s Office in hopes of creating a disturbance when the initiative was filed.
McPhail might have guessed correctly. During the week leading up to the filing deadline, a young woman who identified herself as an intern for the United Food Commercial Workers Local 99 sat quietly at the office from opening until closing.
Her task, she said, was to call the union if she heard the initiative was to be filed.
Deputy Secretary of State Kevin Tyne said the young woman apparently missed the filing of the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative when she appeared at the office about 15 minutes too late.
The initiative is the work of Ward Connerly, a former member of the California Board of Regents who has helped pass similar measures in California and Michigan. On June 30, opponents of the initiative, including BAMN, filed a lawsuit in hopes of stopping the proposal from reaching voters in November.
Majority Rules
A ballot initiative committee calling itself Majority Rules filed an estimated 390,000 signatures with the Secretary of State’s Office at about noon on July 3, the day of the deadline.
The measure would curtail citizens’ ability to pass ballot measures that raise state taxes or fees by requiring that a majority of registered voters — not voters who filled out ballots — must approve initiatives in order for them to become law.
Officials with the committee, including Chairwoman Christina Bryngelson and Treasurer Christine Brown did not attend the filing. The signatures were dropped off by Meghan Cox, who said she was not authorized by the committee to speak to the media.
The measure has been propelled by the Lincoln Strategy Group, a conservative consultant group operated by Nathan Sproul. The company did not return phone calls. Bryngelson also didn’t return phone calls.
Majority Rules is backed financially by fast-food franchisee Jason LeVecke, Tucson auto-dealer Jim Click and an assortment of alcohol distributors.
TIME
The Secretary of State’s Office on July 2 received an estimated 250,000 voter signatures to help qualify a measure that is expected to raise $42.6 billion for transportation and other projects in Arizona.
While officials with the TIME ballot initiative committee were absent, consultant Thomas Ziemba filed the signatures for the measure that has the support of Gov. Janet Napolitano and members of the construction industry.
The initiative proposes paying for transportation upgrades by increasing the state’s sales tax by a penny for every dollar spent — an 18-percent increase to today’s state rate of 5.6 percent.
The tax would be applied over the next 30 years to produce the $42.6 billion supporters say is needed for an extensive transportation overhaul, including road and freeway construction and public transportation additions such as light rail and commuter trains.
Ziemba, a partner with consulting firm ZiembaWaid Public Affairs, said he believed citizens will pass the initiative to create fixes for traffic woes and provide alternatives to high gasoline prices.
“Arizonans are focused on the issue of transportation,” Ziemba said. “They want to see this on the ballot and they want to have choices.”
So far, the initiative effort has relied almost exclusively on contributions from groups that stand to profit from a spike in public transportation contracts — contractors and firms specializing in construction and engineering. To date, the group has raised approximately $700,000, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Secretary of State’s Office.
Additional support for the TIME initiative from the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona was apparently secured in a May 6 pact reached between the builders and Napolitano.
But last week, HBCA President Connie Wilhelm said supporters of the TIME initiative refused the group’s offering of more than 18,000 signatures — and a check for almost $30,000 — to fulfill a promise to contribute $100,000 for signature-gathering efforts.
Wilhelm attributed the run-in to a dispute over the terms of the agreement and said she made the decision to use her own consultant to be a “good steward” of HBACA members’ money.
“They (the TIME Coalition) wanted to control the money, but I had no way of knowing it was being used for the purposes I committed it for,” she said.
Martin Shultz, TIME treasurer, said the letter was interpreted by attorneys to mean that $100,000 was to be contributed directly to the campaign, which had noted concerns over “unauthorized in-kind contributions.”
“We thought her obligation was $100,000 cash,” he said, adding the campaign wanted to maintain direct control over collected signatures at all times. He also denied Wilhelm’s claim that her notice of making an in-kind contribution went unopposed.
In return for the financial pledge, and the HBACA’s neutrality on a state trust land-reform ballot proposal, the letter conveys that the TIME initiative would not include assessment taxes or development-impact fees.
Conserving Arizona’s Water and Land
Supporters of an init
iative to reform Arizona’s handling of state trust land filed what they claim to be more than 365,000 signatures on July 2 to put the measure before voters in November.
The Conserving Arizona’s Water and Land initiative would immediately designate 570,000 of the state’s 9 million acres of trust land for permanent conservation. Local governments and agencies also could buy state land for conservation efforts without competitive bidding.
Right now, trust lands are sold at auction to raise funds for 14 beneficiaries and efforts, such as the Arizona State Hospital and the building of government buildings, but the vast majority of money from state land sales goes to Arizona’s public school system.
The initiative’s main supporters are Gov. Janet Napolitano, former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Pederson and the Virginia-based group The Nature Conservancy, which last fiscal year listed its total assets at $5.4 billion.
The committee’s chairman, Patrick Graham, who also serves as executive director for the Arizona chapter of the Nature Conservancy, was not on hand for the filing of the group’s qualifying signatures.
Consultant Jaime Molera, who served as policy adviser to former Gov. Jane Hull, said the measure will conserve Arizona’s natural habitat and bring in more money for beneficiaries by increasing the value of lands sold that border on designated conservation areas.
The initiative also would allow the State Land Department to collect a “reasonable percentage” of money acquired through the handling and sale of state land to improve land planning and appraisal processes, which in turn would help boost profits, Molera said.
However, not all of the beneficiaries of state trust land sales are confident that the initiative will translate into more funding.
On June 28, the school district delegates of the Arizona School Boards Association voted by 2-to-1 margin to oppose the initiative. ASBA President Suzanne Schweiger-Nitchals said the association will contest the effort out of a concern that it could cause education funding streams to decline.
Some delegates were worried that the State Land Department would absorb funding from the voter-approved Classroom Site Fund, and noted the initiative did not include a cap on how much the department could take, she said.
Supporters of the initiative have raised approximately $800,000 from contributors, with $500,000 coming from The Nature Conservancy. The committee, according to campaign finance reports, has roughly a quarter of a million dollars on hand.
Stop Illegal Hiring
Supporters of a business-led initiative to change the state’s employer sanctions law filed more than 284,000 petition signatures July 1 in an effort to let voters decide the issue in November.
“The people of Arizona have spoken in a strong voice, telling us that they want a law that gets tough on illegal immigration, gets tough on the scourge of identity theft, while still protecting innocent workers,” said Andrew Pacheco, chairman of the Stop Illegal Hiring campaign committee.
The initiative was launched last year in response to lawmakers approving the nation’s first employer sanctions law and a competing initiative that would make that law even tougher. Pacheco said it will penalize businesses that hire illegal immigrants and protect innocent employees from losing their jobs.
Critics of the sanctions law said it could ensnare honest business owners and force them to shut down. The existing law applies to employers that “knowingly” hire illegal workers. A first offense leads to a 10-day suspension of a business’ license, while a subsequent offense requires license revocation.
Pacheco said the opposing initiative campaign, which is fronted by former Republican gubernatorial candidate Don Goldwater and sanctions law architect Rep. Russell Pearce, would have put Arizonans at risk of losing their jobs.
“It does not protect innocent jobs,” he said. “It would have all the employees of a company where one bad hiring decision is made fired to punish one employer.”
That competing initiative, known as Legal Arizona Workers, did not muster enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. It and a sister initiative, which would have required local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration laws, both fell short of the minimum 153,365 signatures needed.
Right now, the law permits prosecution of business owners who had “constructive knowledge” of illegal hirings. In other words, if the employer reasonably could have concluded the workers were illegal immigrants, he or she could face sanctions.
The Stop Illegal Hiring initiative would achieve its job-protection goals by changing the standard under which businesses can be prosecuted. The initiative would change the qualifying language to “actual knowledge,” a much more difficult standard for prosecutors to prove, as they would have to show the owner or an officer of a business had direct knowledge that an employee was not eligible to work under federal law.
The business-backed initiative would also repeal a requirement that all Arizona businesses use the federal E-Verify system, an online verification database that alerts employers if an employee is not a legal worker.
More than half of the more than $513,000 raised by the Stop Illegal Hiring campaign through May 31 came from Wake Up Arizona, a coalition of Arizona business owners that formed to oppose the current sanctions law. That group has contributed nearly $375,000.
Prominent members of Wake Up Arizona include: McDonald’s franchisee Marion “Mac” Magruder; Diamondbacks CEO Jeff Moorad; and Jason LaVecke, who owns dozens of Carl’s Jr. restaurants.
Wake Up Arizona also was part of a federal challenge to the law.
The law was upheld in a federal District Court and is now being considered by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court heard arguments last month and is expected to issue a ruling later this year.
Homeowners’ Bill of Rights
Union officials, rank-and-file members and a Goodyear couple visited the Secretary of State’s Office June 30 to mark the turning in of an estimated 262,000 signatures to put the Homeowners’ Bill of Rights initiative on the 2008 ballot.
The initiative was billed by supporters as a step to empower homeowners who confront builders over poorly built homes and a means to provide more transparency for consumers purchasing new homes.
“The Arizona AFL-CIO believes that home ownership is a fundamental dream for everyone, and everyone should be entitled to that and entitled to hold accountable those homebuilders that are not accountable when they build a shoddy product,” said Rebekah Friend, the labor organization’s executive director.
But Spencer Kamps, a lobbyist with the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, said the real motivation behind the initiative has nothing to do with the quality of homes being built or consumer protection.
Kamps and his organization last week filed as an official ballot initiative committee to thwart the proposal, which he described as a retaliatory instrument for the HBACA’s refusal to force its heating and cooling subcontractors to unionize.
“These policies will ultimately cost consumers money — solely with the purpose of the unions unionizing,” he said. “I don’t think increasing the cost of housing and lining trial lawyers’ pockets is a goal voters typically support.”
The Homeowners’ Bill of Rights initiative seeks to mandate 10-year warranties on new homes and to allow owners to select contractors to do home repairs — from lists supplied by builders containing three contractors who have no record of orders from the state’s Registrar of Contractors within the past 10 years preceding the seller’s offer.
The measure also wo
uld change state statutes that allow builders to collect attorney and expert-witness fees from owners if they successfully defeat consumer lawsuits in court, said campaign spokesperson and attorney Richard McCracken.
“Who among us, who is an individual homeowner, is going to risk that?” he asked a crowd of union members and reporters. “Who is going to go up against one of these big corporations and risk having to pay all their attorneys fees and their expert fees?”
Arizonans for Financial Reform
Supporters of a measure to add regulations to Arizona’s payday-loan industry turned in an estimated 265,000 signatures on June 23, marking the first signatures filed for a 2008 ballot measure.
The industry-backed payday-loan initiative is less restrictive than a separate, more-restrictive proposal supported by Rep. Marion McClure, D-30, and Sen. Debbie McCune Davis, D-14, which was called off when it became clear that it would not garner enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.
Political consultant Stan Barnes said the initiative filed by Arizonans for Financial Reform seeks to implement a series of consumer-friendly restrictions on the payday-loan industry.
The changes include lowering fees on short-term loans and stopping expensive loan rollovers, as well as a provision to bypass a legislative hearing scheduled in 2010 that could result in the termination of the industry in Arizona.
Upcoming advertising and direct-mail campaign efforts will focus on raising voter support by countering criticism from opponents that the payday-loan industry is predatory and preys on poorer consumers, Barnes said.
Barnes said he expects the industry to shrink if the proposal is approved by voters in November, as “fringe players” will not be able to survive the lower caps on fees and other changes.
McClure and other critics have said the industry-led drive is a farce designed to continue the lucrative and destructive practice. McClure has joined the Stop Pay Predators committee led by McCune Davis to directly campaign against Arizonans for Financial Reform.
Supporters of solidifying the payday-loan industry’s existence in Arizona have a considerable financial advantage. Arizonans for Financial Reform has secured more than $2.3 million in contributions, compared to the Stop Pay Day Predators collection of $23,000.
No New Home Tax
Backers of an initiative to change the Arizona Constitution to prevent state and local governments from taxing the sale or transfer of homes and businesses filed what — for a short time — was believed to be a record number of qualifying signatures on June 24
Protect Our Homes, a committee supportive of the No New Home Tax Initiative, filed an estimated 375,000 signatures of Arizona voters to qualify for the November ballot (the Majority Rules initiative was filed with an estimated 390,000 signatures a few days later).
Arizona doesn’t impose taxes on the sale or transfer of homes, but the Protect Our Homes committee said recent considerations by certain legislators and the Citizens Finance Review Commission have prompted opponents of the transfer tax to take action.
“Property owners already pay taxes and this type of transfer tax would be double taxation, and I think we can all agree that’s not good policy and it’s just wrong,” said Frank Dickens, chairman of Protect Our Homes and a board member for the Arizona Association of Realtors.
The committee also argued an added tax would hurt the sagging housing market and hinder owners’ ability to profit from the sale of their homes, and that it unfairly forces homeowners to forfeit equity.
Tom Farley, a lobbyist for the Realtors, said the initiative would equally protect businesses and private homes from transfer taxes, which could be revisited by governments to help offset budget deficits.
Farley said 36 states have enacted real-estate-transfer taxes when the federal government voided the practice after deeming the taxes a roadblock to affordable housing.
Other supporters of the initiative include the Arizona Farm Bureau and the Arizona Cattlemen’s Association.
Dickens said he is not aware of any active opposition to the campaign.
In 2003, Gov. Janet Napolitano’s Citizens Finance Review Commission considered, but ultimately decided against recommending a real estate-sale or transfer tax that would have put a .25-percent (a quarter of 1 percent) levy on properties valued between $100,000 and $250,000.
A full 1-percent tax would have been imposed on the sale or transfer of properties valued at more than $250,000 under the rejected plan, according to Protect Our Homes.
The matter again resurfaced in 2006, with the introduction of H2762 by Reps. Tom Prezelski, D-29, and Phil Lopes, D-27. The measure authorized county real estate transfer taxes, but it was not heard by any legislative committees.
Like any initiative proposal to change the state Constitution, proponents of the No New Home Tax initiative were required to submit 230,047 signatures of registered Arizona voters to qualify for the 2008 ballot.
Medical Choice for Arizona
Supporters of a proposed constitutional initiative that would forbid the state from restricting citizens’ choice of private health-care insurers filed an estimated 330,000 signatures on June 26.
The proposal, known as Medical Choice for Arizona, is the product of two Valley surgeons, Eric Novack and Jeffrey Singer.
Novack, the committee’s chairman, said the measure ensures that future Arizona health-care legislation and regulations never interfere with patient choice.
“Every special interest is involved in this (health care) and we need to protect the rights of individuals,” he said.

BALLOT REFERRALS
Marriage
In the final hours before ending the 2008 regular session, state senators approved legislation that will allow voters to decide whether to ban gay marriage by amending the state Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
The 16-4 vote to approve SCR1042 on June 30 capped a 166-day session that went down as the fourth-longest in state history. It also marked one of the most contentious battles between the two parties in several years, as Democrats walked out before sine die in disgust over the proposal.
Supporters say a constitutional ban on gay marriage is needed to ensure that courts do not overturn existing state law that bans such unions. Recent court rulings in California and other states to overturn similar bans motivated supporters to push for the Arizona legislation, which had stalled in the Senate after early approval in the House.
In the end, a bloc of Republicans was able to pass the measure over the objections of two openly gay Democratic lawmakers.
Arizona voters rejected a similar state constitutional amendment in 2006. That measure would have also stopped the state from recognizing civil unions of same-sex couples.
Salaries for Elective State Officers
The Arizona Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers has referred a measure to the ballot that would increase the pay of state lawmakers to $30,000 a year from $24,000 a year.
But, if history continues to repeat itself, the measure could be headed for rejection.
The proposal is similar to failed measures that appeared on the 2006, 2004 and 2002 ballots. In those election years, the commission had proposed raising lawmakers’ salaries to $36,000. In 2000, voters shot down a proposal to raise salaries to $30,000.
Legislators’ salaries were raised to $24,000 in 1999.
School District Unification
Arizona schools are facing the most sweeping organizational changes in the state’s history. In November, voters will be asked to consider a ballot measure that would enable voters to decide if they want to combine 76 districts into 27 larger, unified districts.
The change would affect more than a quarte
r of Arizona’s 1.2 million public school students, and it will mark the first time Arizona residents have been asked to determine how school districts should be structured.
Supporters say unifying the school districts will eliminate layers of administration, free up more money that can be spent in classrooms, and provide a more seamless education by coordinating the curriculum used from kindergarten through high school.
But opponents worry that those goals ignore the logistics involved in merging multiple districts that have varying tax rates, bond structures and salary scales. They worry administrative jobs will have to be cut and that there won’t be enough money to give raises to some of the teachers. And they question whether larger districts would really lead to higher student achievement.
“There are too many questions that are unanswered — questions about the tax rates and the salaries,” said John Wright, president of the Arizona Education Association, the largest teachers’ union in the state. “The commission’s answer was the new school board will have to decide that. That is an unfortunate response.”
Some supporters of unification said critics are mucking up the issue with technicalities.
“When anyone brings up an issue to me that involves governance I roll my eyes,” Richard Foreman, director of the Parent Unification Committee, said. “I don’t support unification because it saves tax dollars or creates efficiencies; I support it because it is better for kids, period.”
The unification ballot measure was the result of two years of work by the Arizona School District Commission (SDRC), which was established by the 2005 passage of S1068, a measure sponsored by former Washington Elementary School Board member and current state Sen. Linda Gray.
The proposal faces great challenges at the ballot. In order for a group of districts to come together, a majority of voters in each of the individual districts would have to approve the plan.
If voters in one district reject the proposal, then none of the adjoining districts would be allowed to unify.
Martin Shultz, SDRC chairman, calls it a “tall political order.” But the hope is that many of the proposed 27 unified districts across the state will be given the go-ahead to come together.?