Two of the state’s leading business groups have announced their opposition to an initiative that would decimate Arizonans’ ability to secure credit and financing.

Both the Arizona �߲�ֱ�� of Commerce & Industry and the Greater Phoenix �߲�ֱ�� said they are opposing what proponents have dubbed the “Predatory Debt Collection Protection Act.”

The Predatory Debt Collection Protection Act is being touted by proponents to help Arizonans in medical debt from unfair collection practices, protect additional assets from being sold to pay obligated medical bills, and lower interest rates. 

Proponents claim the initiative aims to exclusively protect consumers from unfair medical debt practices, but many believe the convoluted language will have major implications for all types of debt financing. 

The initiative is backed by the California-based labor union SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and is supported by the Arizona Democratic Party and labor unions UNITE HERE Local 11, the Western States Regional Joint Board, the Arizona Building and Construction Trades Council, the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters and the Arizona Education Association. 

Arizona �߲�ֱ�� President and CEO Danny Seiden said despite the initiative’s promises, its negative consequences would be far-reaching.

​​“When lenders can’t collect outstanding debts, they’ll pass their losses onto their other customers, which means higher interest rates for everyday Arizonans,” he said. “At a time of sky-high inflation, do we really want even higher interest rates?”

“What’s worse, thousands of Arizonans will lose access to previously available financing. Left without the ability to collect on their loans, lenders will simply stop doing business with hardworking Arizonans who need access to funds the most, leaving these potential customers unable to get credit to buy a car, rent an apartment or buy a house.”

Todd Sanders, the president and CEO of the Greater Phoenix �߲�ֱ��, agreed, saying that the passage of the initiative will have detrimental consequences for the people of Arizona.

“The �߲�ֱ�� is opposed to a new initiative that would make it harder for lenders to collect on debts,” he said. “This could make it more difficult for people in Arizona to get access to credit and amplify the current housing affordability issue, making it more difficult for people to buy homes and start businesses in Arizona. The passage of this initiative would be a disaster for Arizona and should be avoided at all costs.” 

Other business, civic, and community groups opposing the ballot initiative include the Arizona Bankers Association and Arizona Retailers Association.

“We are working to protect the interests of Arizona small businesses and our community from another attempt by a California political organization to remake Arizona into their image,” said Amber Russo, a small business owner and spokesperson for opposition committee Protect Our Arizona. “Arizonans have been hit hard by the current economy and taking away access to credit will result in even tougher times for hardworking families.”

Interest rates for consumers have risen over the past year. Despite the recent half-point plunge, the average rate for a 30-year home mortgage is 5.3% for the week ending July 7, nearly doubling last year.

The cost of living has increased rapidly over the past year, with area prices up 2.5% over the past two months. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics released Wednesday, the U.S. inflation rate was 8.3% compared to Arizona’s national high of 11%. 

If passed, the act could harm consumers and lenders, leaving the credit market strangled and creditors in an even worse position during a time of high inflation.

The campaign Healthcare Rising Arizona turned in more than 470,000 petition signatures to the Secretary of State’s office on Thursday. If a sufficient number of signatures are found to be valid, the initiative question will appear on the November ballot.

The post Business groups announce opposition to labor union-backed debt collection initiative appeared first on �߲�ֱ��.

Arizona’s Single Subject Rule requires legislative acts only to address one subject. Legislation that tackles multiple issues in a single bill violates the rule and cannot be passed. However, presently, the rule does not apply to lawmaking via the ballot initiative process.

Of the 26 states with a ballot initiative process, 16 of them have some version of a single-subject rule, including Arizona. The state Supreme Court, however, determined that it only applies to legislation adopted by the Legislature.

The Court made this decision during Arizona �߲�ֱ�� of Commerce & Industry v. Kiley, a case involving a ballot initiative that increased the state’s minimum wage and implemented mandatory sick leave. The �߲�ֱ�� argued that the measure violated the Single Subject Rule, but the Court “that the Single Subject Rule applies only to acts by the legislature; it does not apply to initiatives.”

As the Court points out in its final report on the case, “the Single Subject Rule was intended to prevent ‘log-rolling’ by sparing an individual legislator from having to vote for a disfavored proposition to secure enactment of a favored one.”

Some lawmakers believe the opportunity to inject log-rolling into initiatives is dangerous. If citizens favor one part of an initiative but not another, then their vote–or lack thereof–is not an absolute vote, but rather a partial one. Hence, the state ends up passing or voting down legislation that the public only partially supports.

Last session, state Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Scottsdale) proposed a referral to the ballot that would ask voters to apply the single subject rule to statutory initiatives. SCR 1001 would have required initiatives to have only one subject and for the subject to be mentioned in the title of the initiative.

Yet, citizens that want to amend the state constitution must limit their proposed changes to one subject. These proposed constitutional amendments must adhere to the Separate Amendment rule, which limits propositions to containing just one constitutional change. Even so, the Separate Amendment law can be followed very liberally.

“Historical criticism of the Separate Amendment rule is that the court applied it predictably but not because of problems in the law, but what the judge thought was a good or bad law,” Statecraft attorney Kory Langhofer said. “There was a 90-word conservative ballot [initiative] that they struck down and then a 13,000-word ballot [initiative] that they let through a year later.”

Others argue that the Single Subject Rule isn’t crucial for ballot initiatives. In fact, The Torres Firm General Counsel Jim Barton believes that the Single Subject Rule isn’t important for ballot initiatives or legislation.

“I’m not positive that it is an important rule. Because you put a couple things under the same bill number, is that really going to trick a legislative member?” he said. “The information about what a bill does is amply available. We have the rule when it comes to amendments.

Barton believes that the Single Subject Rule only gives the courts more discretionary power to strike down initiatives, something that the state’s founders certainly would not want.

The post The Single Subject Rule: Pros and Cons appeared first on �߲�ֱ��.

One of the most debated topics of ballot measures is the use of the “strict compliance” versus “substantial compliance” standard of judicial review.

Ballot initiatives were subject to “substantial compliance,” meaning courts were unlikely to remove a measure from the ballot unless the initiative or signature gathering process perpetrated substantial election illegalities.

In 2017, Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law House Bill 2244, which shifted the standard to strict compliance.

Gov. Ducey expressed his rationale for H.B. 2244 in a statement. “This commonsense legislation preserves the integrity of the process by ensuring that those seeking to make lasting changes to our laws comply with current laws,” Ducey said.

Legal expert Roy Herrera highlights the Invest in Education initiative as an example of how strict compliance challenges initiatives.

“Where Invest in Ed throws a wrench into certain things is that what was not strictly compliant was the 100-word summary,” he notes. “If the hundred word was misleading in some way, then it wouldn’t be compliant. The court decided that it was possible to mislead the public.”

Advocates of strict compliance argue that lenience in ballot initiatives has forced the process away from its intended use.

Snell & Wilmer Law partner Eric Spencer, who is the previous state elections director, describes the motivation for strict, rather than substantial, compliance.

“It’s been deemed necessary to reign in that practice and make sure that process is more strictly complied with,” he said. “This makes sure those laws that make it to the ballot are the ones that really deserve to be there.”

If courts are given freedom when examining ballot initiatives, then faults in the process can easily slip through the cracks. Formatting errors or missing information face no consequences, leading to blurry law that could negatively impact the state for years.

“If there’s going to be so much money put into it, you could theoretically flood election officials and courts with fraudulent signatures or questionable signatures at such a volume that it would be difficult to root out potential fraud that is baked into the cake,” Spencer said. “The strict compliance regime is designed to put tools in place to better prevent or detect that fraud in the system. The backers of strict compliance wouldn’t say it’s designed to discourage initiatives but instead to get it back to what it was designed for.”

Opponents of strict compliance argue that it takes away too much judicial discretion. In fact, last May, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the strict compliance law. Nevertheless, it could face challenges in the future, especially if driven by a voter-led ballot initiative.

The post What is strict compliance? appeared first on �߲�ֱ��.

At the time of the state’s founding, the writers of the state constitution wanted to give power to the people. To carry this out, the founders developed the , which would allow citizens to create their own legislative proposals that would appear in the next election if they meet all requirements.

For decades, the process performed almost perfectly; initiatives were primarily in-state interests, and they passed all requirements without entering any gray areas. However, over time, states and governments go through natural changes, so the process has faced hurdles for which the founders didn’t account.

In fact, even at the time of the state’s founding, initiative processes were a relatively new concept.

“Having an initiative process didn’t become more of a concept until the late 19th Century,” says Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi. “States were coming into statehood and there wasn’t this uniform model. After this was adopted and people started realizing the pros and cons of this initiative process, states started making changes to the initiative process.”

The 24 states that support ballot initiatives have for their signature-collection and court approval processes. For example, some states require petition signatures to be gathered from across the state, and states differ on the number of signatures that must be collected. Such requirements can help combat from running their own ballot initiatives and intruding in other states’ legal processes.

Arizona has its own unique signature gathering and petition circulation requirements.

“These are all possibilities that are helping to limit the massive out-of-state groups that helicopter into Arizona come election-time,” explains Arizona �߲�ֱ�� of Commerce Public Affairs Director Mara Mellstrom. “It’s really to combat wealthy, out-of-state interests that seek to win by the ballot. They’ll overwhelm the Secretary of State’s Office and submit signatures when there’s not physically enough time to check their validity. This is a process that can be taken advantage of, and the people that can take advantage of it can do so because they have a lot of money to do it.”

furthers the fight against election fraud, especially surrounding . More specifically, it tightens the criteria to apply and be approved to be a paid circulator, ensuring that no circulators have committed election fraud in the past or have been convicted of fraud, forgery or identity theft.

State. Sen. Vince Leach (R-Saddlebrooke), the bill sponsor, pointed out in the Senate Judiciary Committee that Title 7, Section 12 of the Constitution states, “There shall be enacted registration and other laws to secure the purity of elections and guard against abuses of the elected franchise.” S.B. 1451 does just that by ensuring the strictness and legitimacy of petition practices.

“I cannot tell you how many people in the witness box had not had their full rights restored and had not done restitution and yet were turning in ballots – turning in sheets of candidate signatures,” Leach said, referring to legal challenges to signature validity during last year’s election. “Boxes of signatures were disallowed by the judge because of this situation.”

The business community supports the reforms contained in Sen. Leach’s bill.

“We believe that it should be a secure process, and petition signers should have some level of confidence in the individuals to whom they are sending their personal information,” Arizona �߲�ֱ�� of Commerce and Industry Vice President Garrick Taylor said. “We think it strikes the right balance between the gravity of this process and the needed reforms that the initiative process deserves.”

The post Reforming the ballot initiative process appeared first on �߲�ֱ��.

Almost as important as the ballot measure itself is the language used on circulating petitions. Without the correct phrasing and format, a petition could be struck down before qualifying for the ballot.

Where most petitions run into problems is on the shortened summary of the initiative. The synopsis of the ballot initiative can be no more than 100 words and must include all the principal provisions from the proposition.

Generally, an attorney on the “yes” side of the initiative drafts the summary, but he or she faces uncertainty when drafting the petition language. Because no one can approve the summary in advance of its submission, the pro-side cannot ensure its approval by the secretary of state.

After submission, any party can challenge the language, with the Arizona Supreme Court serving as the final arbiter to determine whether the petition language has the potential to confuse or mislead voters.

The most recent example of a ballot measure that was struck down due to its language is the Invest in Education Act, which sought to raise taxes on individuals and small businesses to fund education.

“Invest in Ed was the first one in a very long time that had been struck down for a defective caption,” Statecraft attorney Kory Langhofer said. “There was polling evidence in that case that suggested the defect would’ve changed how people would’ve seen the proposition.”

Opponents of the legislation argued that the summary described Arizona’s top tax brackets as rising by 3.46 and 4.46 percent, rather than percentage points. In actuality, 3.46 and 4.46 percentage point gains are equivalent to 76 and 98 percent increases.

Ballard Spahr attorney Roy Herrera notes that the Invest in Education Act decision throws a wrench into the creation of future petition summaries.

“My question is, ‘How am I assured of complying?’” he said. “There’s no real hard-and-fast rule about what’s misleading and what isn’t. Invest in Ed is going to be used against every initiative that gets proposed.”

Because there is no formal vetting of the summaries, Langhofer says initiative lawyers can face roadblocks to get their initiative on the ballot.

“No one approves [the summary] in advance,” he said. “The ‘yes’ side has to come up with it and finalize it on their own without approval of the secretary of state.”

The post Where does the petition language come from? appeared first on �߲�ֱ��.

When many of the western United States’ territories were settling, the progressive movement was in full force. Because of this, constitutions in many of these states were much more forward-looking when it came to citizen participation and power. Hence, the was born in many states, with each adopting its own set of regulations for the process.

Compared to Arizona’s initiative process, some states’ processes are more complicated for citizens seeking to make laws, other states less so.

On the front end of the process, Arizona has a relatively low signature threshold for an initiative to qualify for the ballot. In addition, the state has no geographic requirement for signature collection. It depends on the state, unfortunately. By comparison, some states require sponsors of an initiative to collect a certain number of signatures from counties, legislative districts, or congressional districts.

Two bills making their way through the legislative process in 2019 would send to the 2020 ballot the question of whether to require signatures to be gathered from each Arizona legislative district. The majority of petition signatures under Arizona’s current rules are typically gathered from the metro Phoenix and Tucson areas.

Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi said some states’ initiative processes are more rigorous.

“In Florida, if you want to amend the constitution, you need 70 percent of the vote,” Mussi said. “In Nevada, a voter-approved measure has to pass through two general election cycles. Colorado has a 55 percent of the vote on the front-end. You also have to get signatures from every legislative district before it’s on the ballot.”

On the other end of the spectrum, the path to the ballot in some states is less rigorous. For example, although Colorado requires 55 percent of votes for an initiative to pass, sponsors have to collect far fewer signatures, and the state is perceived to have an initiative-friendly judicial system. Consequently, most initiatives find their way onto the ballot by the time of the election.

Arizona’s ballot initiative requirements strike a middle ground, according to Arizona attorney and Democratic consultant Roy Herrera.

“It’s not the most onerous in the world, but it is potentially harder than some other states,” Herrera said. “But I don’t think we should be throwing up barriers. I have to give a bit of credit to citizens and their ability to discern whether or not it’s good for the state.”

However, because of the power of the , theLegislature andd the public faces many hurdles if they hope to alter an initiative in the future.

“Most other states don’t have a VPA, or if they do, it’s not as restrictive,” the Free Enterprise Club’s Mussi said. “We have the most onerous and restrictive VPA in the country after initiatives are passed.”

The post How do other states regulate their initiative process? appeared first on �߲�ֱ��.

If you’ve ever walked into a grocery store during election season, chances are you’ve seen and/or talked to a paid petition circulator. Circulators are paid by the supporters of a to collect enough citizens’ signatures to put an initiative on the ballot.

In Arizona, the paid circulation process has experienced significant changes in recent years. In 2017, Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law House Bill 2404, legislation that changed the payment method for circulators. Before H.B. 2404, circulators could be paid a certain amount for every signature they collected; the bill banned that practice.

All paid circulators, whether from Arizona or out-of-state, must register with the Secretary of State before they collect any signatures. LaMachine Field Operations CEO Antonio Valdovinos explains that this transparency is important, especially because of the manpower that is often recruited from outside the state.

“Things get very competitive. The biggest difficulty is manpower because obviously there are deadlines,” Valdovinos said. “Recruitment for a high level of signatures is tough because you need a lot of people that can collect hundreds of thousands of signatures. Because they all have to register with the state, fraud is much harder to do. And when it’s a paid operation, it’s very easy to filter those out and make sure that person is no longer able to qualify for petitions.”

Petition Partners CEO Drew Chavez says his company is constantly trying to provide the best working environment for its circulators.

“These days, we’re just like every other business,” Chavez said. “We’re trying to make a good working environment, good compensation, health benefits, recruiting, and more.”

Valdovinos points out that newer policies provide voters with more information about the petitions they are asked to sign.

“There’s been a lot of adjustments to the rules of circulating petitions,” he said. “That’s a good thing because it really does protect what gets on the ballot and what information voters receive from circulators about what they’re actually signing. When someone signs a petition, they should definitely know what they’re signing for.”

But even with the recent changes, there are still concerns about felons and individuals convicted of fraud becoming paid signature gatherers.

Senate Bill 1451, legislation introduced by state Sen. Vince Leach (R-Saddlebrooke, Oro Valley), will mitigate the potential for fraud significantly.

If passed, the bill, among other reforms, will prohibit signature collection if a circulator has violated a state election law in the last five years, was convicted of a felony and has not had his or her rights restored as required by law, or was convicted of a crime involving fraud, forgery, or identity theft.

The bill also would require paid circulators to provide more complete information on their registration form, including full name, address, telephone number and email address.

“It’s no different than an I.D. for other things. That’s something they have to notarize all the signatures that go in now on the ballot. So, this is just making sure that the person turning in the forms is the person that they represent,” Senator Leach said.

The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month on a party-line vote. It awaits a vote of the full Senate.

The paid circulation process has endured many changes, but they have all helped to bolster the ballot initiative process.

“The petition process is beautiful because it goes back to the U.S. Constitution, where if Congress isn’t getting it done, then the people should be able to get it done,” Valdivinos said.

The post “Sign Here”: the process to qualify for the ballot appeared first on �߲�ֱ��.

The state’s , intended to give more power to Arizona citizens, has also indirectly given significant power to out-of-state political interest groups. The voter-protected nature of Arizona’s initiatives has made the state an attractive investment opportunity for many political agendas.

Arizona’s ballot initiative process allows a state resident to prepare a petition for a proposed change to state law or a constitutional amendment. If the citizen collects the required number of valid signatures, the petition will then be reviewed and approved by the Secretary of State.

This is a useful political tool by itself, but it was made even more useful when the Voter Protection Act was passed in 1998. The VPA is an amendment to the state constitution that prohibits legislators from altering, redeveloping or repealing ballot initiatives. The only way the state Legislature can make changes to a voter-approved initiative is if it “furthers the purpose” of the initial measure; after that, the amendment must receive a three-fourths vote in the Arizona House of Representatives and Senate, a nearly impossible threshold.

Because of the Voter Protection Act, Arizona ballot initiatives are essentially untouchable, which makes them the perfect tool for any political interest group. An interest group can find a representative for the initiative so that it seems like it’s being driven locally, when behind the curtains, that is not the case.

Snell & Wilmer Law managing partner Brett Johnson explains that the VPA is almost single-handedly the cause of the attraction of out-of-state interest groups.

“The reason for out-of-state interests is, quite simply, the Voter Protection Act. It’s an 800-pound gorilla that they do not face in other states,” Johnson said. “For example, in Colorado, the legislature has the ability to tweak the law. So, there’s less intensity to go into those types of states where you go and drop a bunch of money just to have it changed within the next few years.”

Recent examples of ballot initiatives spearheaded by out-of-state interest groups include 2016’s and 2018’s .

The Renewable Energy Standards Initiative campaign was led by NextGen Climate Action, a California-based nonprofit organization that advocates on environmental issues; the organization was created by billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer.

Similarly, the Arizona Marijuana Legalization Initiative campaign, which would have legalized the use of marijuana in the state, was led by Marijuana Policy Project. MPP is a Washington DC-based organization that works on marijuana policy reform. In 2016, nine states had a similar initiative on the ballot; Arizona was the only one that did not pass it.

Government relations consultant Mario Diaz believes that out-of-state interest groups’ gravitation towards Arizona exemplifies its position as a policy incubator.

“I think Arizona is a breeding ground for initiatives,” Diaz said. “And because of the relatively low number of signatures needed, I think that’s why out-of-state groups have used Arizona as an incubator for their political agendas. It’s more cost-effective to come to Arizona to try and test the waters through an initiative before taking it nationwide.”

Johnson notes that initiatives can certainly help voter turnout by attracting citizens who are passionate about a certain cause. But for the most part, he says, initiatives driven by out-of-state parties are detrimental to state politics.

“The main negative about this is that they have no appreciation for Arizona and existing Arizona law and the unintended consequences of what they might do.”

Lastly, Johnson notes the importance of Arizona citizens coming together to vote on policy matters and maintain control of the future of the state. “Going back to our founders and what they really wanted — they really wanted our citizens to be the final say in public policy in Arizona,” he said.

The post Why does Arizona attract out-of-state ballot initiative interests? appeared first on �߲�ֱ��.

Ballot initiatives have been part of Arizona’s political fabric since statehood. Modifications to the process have occurred over the past 100 years, but none as significant as the Voter Protection Act (VPA).

In 1996, Arizona voters passed a state initiative that allowed doctors to prescribe medical marijuana to patients suffering from various conditions. The following year, however, the state Legislature repealed the law.

Voters responded. In 1998 they developed and passed the Voter Protection Act (VPA) to ensure the Legislature could not easily overturn future voter-passed initiatives.

The VPA is an amendment to the state constitution that prohibits legislators from altering, redeveloping, or repealing ballot initiatives. The only way the state Legislature can amend a voter-created initiative is if it “furthers the purpose” of the initial measure. After that, the amendment must receive a three-fourths vote in the Arizona House of Representatives and Senate. Only if it passes both criteria can the state Legislature alter a ballot initiative.

Former State Elections Director and Snell & Wilmer Partner Eric Spencer explains that the constitutional change raises a major topic for debate.

“The VPA is a reaction to what is a legitimate public policy problem to overcome,” he said. “I don’t think anyone would argue that the Legislature should have wholesale, unchecked political power. There needs to be some checks and balances in place.”

However, Spencer notes that the process to revamp initiatives may be too restrictive.

First, determining whether or not an amendment would “further the purpose” of the bill is incredibly ambiguous. Original drafters of the bill may attempt to defend the initiative in court if they disagree with the changes, but Spencer points out that they are likely not the best arbiter in that case.

If it passes through that process, it still has to pass through a three-fourths vote in the Legislature.

“The three-fourths vote makes it practically impossible to make any meaningful changes,” Spencer said. “If it were on ballot by initiative in the first place, that means it was too much of a hot potato to go through the regular legislative process.”

To improve the initiative process, Spencer believes that some alterations to the VPA should be made.

“There are lots of reasons why a large body of law should be tinkered with and refreshed and reevaluated over time,” he said. “The effect of the VPA is that it treats voter-passed laws as almost being sacrosanct. The Legislature can rarely play a role in correcting that body of law. A citizen-passed law is just as likely to be reevaluated and improved as a legislatively passed law, but the VPA handcuffs the Legislature from making those necessary improvements.”

The post Are the Voter Protection Act’s restrictions on lawmakers a feature or a bug? appeared first on �߲�ֱ��.

Power to the people – ballot initiatives were originally designed to establish just that. But does this method of direct democracy actually give Arizona citizens a leg up?

Every election cycle, voters see a handful of Yes / No proposals on the ballot. From tax increases to minimum wage hikes to medicinal marijuana, these are policy issues presented to Arizona voters to decide for themselves whether to amend state law or the state constitution through citizen action.

How does a ballot initiative get on the ballot?  A citizen must prepare a petition for a proposed change to state law or a constitutional amendment for submission to the Arizona Secretary of State. After the petition is submitted, the citizen must then collect signatures. The signatures to be collected must represent either 10 percent or 15 percent of the electorate from the last gubernatorial election (10 percent for changes to state statute, and 15 percent for any amendments to the constitution).  Should the citizen gather the required number of signatures, the signatures are then reviewed and approved by the Secretary of State.  If the signatures are approved, the proposed ballot initiative will be placed on the next general election ballot.

Based on the 2018 gubernatorial election voter turnout, for example, just over 237 thousand signatures for changes to state statute, and 356 thousand for constitutional amendments for the upcoming 2020 general election ballot.

Statecraft law firm’s managing partner Kory Langhofer describes the initial intent of the Arizona ballot initiative process. “It begins with the state’s founding in 1912 when our founders created our constitution,” he explains. “When they were setting up the state constitution, it was an era called the ‘populist era’. Basically, they didn’t trust elite executives to make good decisions. They thought the ordinary voter would be in a good position to make major policy propositions, so they became their own legislature in a way.”

Access to Arizona’s ballot has become an increasingly powerful and expensive tool. Referring an issue or policy to the ballot eliminates the need to propose a matter of policy to the state legislature, which may not share the same policy agenda. But, the ballot initiative process also poses serious risks.

As of 1998, anything approved by the voters via the ballot box is “voter-protected.” Meaning, the only way to amend, alter, or repeal the initiative would be to send it back to the voters for approval at the next general election. Otherwise, any proposed changes to voter-protected initiatives require a three-fourths vote in both legislative chambers. But, most notably, said changes must only “further the intent of the measure.” In short, once approved by the voters, it is extremely difficult to fix or change.

In recent years, the initiative process has been largely captured by interest groups with deep pockets. Langhofer points out that this can be very positive for the state because these interest groups can be more effective and push good policy forward. However, it can also be dangerous, Langhofer notes.

“Sometimes it is very bad, where you have special interest groups who have run ballot measures that would be catastrophic if passed,” he asserts. “This is because it’s not based around the actual law but more around a wealthy consultant who knows how to label and advertise the initiatives. There is real concern that the founders of Arizona never anticipated.”

Special interests – not Arizona citizens – are the ones with millions of dollars to spend on petition-circulating, signature-gathering efforts. Some states combat this problem by requiring geographic parameters to secure signatures from diverse areas throughout the whole state versus a specific county with one big city. At this time, Arizona does not have any such geographical distribution rule.

In recent years, many interest groups behind Arizona’s ballot initiatives have come from out of state. This convolutes the interests’ financial backing and intentions as it relates to how the proposed policy will affect Arizona’s businesses and workers.

We are in a time where transparency is becoming both increasingly challenging and vital. When signing or voting for a ballot initiative, voters should have accurate information about the proposition and the statewide consequences.

In part 2 of this series, CBN will explore the Voter Protection Act and its impact on laws and state budget for the past 20 years.

The post What is a ballot initiative? appeared first on �߲�ֱ��.