A ballot initiative to thwart ballot initiatives was battered at the polls by Arizona voters on Nov. 4.
Prop. 105, the Majority Rules initiative, was rejected by voters at a rate of 2-to-1 with 99 percent of precincts reporting, according to the Secretary of State’s Office.
The measure would have curtailed citizens’ ability to pass ballot measures that raise state taxes or fees by requiring that a majority of all registered voters — not merely those who cast ballots — approve such initiatives in order for them to become law.
The Prop.-105 effort was supported by elements of Arizona’s liquor-distribution and fast-food industries, farming interests and Tucson auto dealer and Republican fundraiser Jim Click.
Lincoln Strategy Group consultant Nathan Sproul helped Prop. 105 qualify for the ballot and assisted the campaign to support it, said he had expected difficulties because of some of the descriptive language used on the ballot.
The ballot contained the following explanation to describe the effect of “yes” and “no” votes on the proposal.
“A ‘yes’ vote shall have the effect of requiring that a majority of registered voters approve any initiative measure establishing, imposing or raising a tax, fee, or other revenue, or mandating a spending obligation, whether on a private person, labor organization, other private legal entity, or the state, in order to become law.”
“A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law under which an initiative measure is enacted upon approval of a majority of registered voters that vote on the measure.”
But the measure’s intent is solid, Sproul said, noting that the state’s current economic recession and level of government spending show the need to add difficulty to raising taxes and spending via the ballot initiative, he said.
“Clearly there needs to be some reform to rein in the ability of special-interest groups to be able to do that,” Sproul said. He said he believes the Majority Rules initiative will generate public debate about the dire need for ballot initiative reform.
Combined, the measure’s supporters spent more than $1.5 million in hopes of enacting the proposal into law.
Opposition efforts were led by education associations, health-care interests, civic groups and elements of the business community such as the Arizona Chapter of Associated General Contractors.
University of Phoenix founder John Sperling contributed $500,000 to help form the Protect Your Vote committee, chaired by Democratic financial contributor Bill Roe and managed by consulting firm Ziemba Waid. The opposition group joined the efforts of the Voters of Arizona, an effort led by John Wright, president of the Arizona Education Association. Both committees ran media campaigns to thwart the initiative.
The opposition committees spent a total of more than $1.1 million, according to the Arizona secretary of state’s pre-general election campaign finance reports.
Panfilo Contreras, executive director of the Arizona School Boards Association, said he was pleased the initiative failed because schools regularly extol the virtues of voting and he believes the measure undermines direct democracy by effectively counting those who do not vote.
“I think my only disappointment was it wasn’t defeated by a larger margin,” said Contreras, former school board member for the Flowing Wells district in Tucson. “I think it is egregiously undemocratic. If there is a minority of people who don’t vote, that’s not the responsibility of the people who bother to show up to the polls.”