VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 132
I got my start in politics through the citizen initiative and referendum process. Citizen initiatives are appealing because they are democracy in its purest form. Referendums have great appeal as well, for the same reasons, and have a further purpose in that they provide a check on unpopular laws. These processes have been enshrined in the Arizona constitution since statehood.
My view, however, on the process changed in 1998 when billionaire international financier George Soros helped fund the Voter Protection Act. Put forth as a reaction to the legislature’s undermining of a marijuana legalization initiative, the Voter Protection Act made it illegal to change any voter-passed initiative unless it furthered the intent of the original measure. In other words, once passed, the legislature could never change it, unless it was broadened, spent even more money . . . you get the picture.
International Financier George Soros
Photo from World Economic Forum
In years past, the Arizona Supreme Court interpreted the state constitution to allow the legislature to modify any voter-passed initiative unless a majority of all registered voters supported the measure. This certainly was a high hurdle, but it allowed the legislature to act as a safety valve in case the measure contained unintended consequences, circumstances had changed, or in the heat of the political moment voters made a rash decision.
Voters aren’t the only ones that make rash decisions, elected officials make them as well, but legislators can and sometimes do change those decisions at some future time. The Voter Protection Act, however, makes changes to a voter-passed initiative virtually impossible.
A major problem with initiatives is that voters only see one issue at the ballot box. Legislators, on the other hand, must weigh each issue and how it affects other related issues as well. When voters focus on one ballot question to the exclusion of all others it can have unintended consequences. It can also have disastrous effects on budgetary and tax matters.
Photo by wuestenigel
The Voter Protection Act does not protect taxpayers. If voters pass a ”feel good” measure to spend a large increase in funds for education, healthcare, public safety, or any other valid measure it must stipulate a funding source such as a tax or a fee. A voter-passed initiative to raise taxes, in particular, could have disastrous effects if the economy goes south. Such an initiative would stick citizens with a permanent tax increase. Permanent is not good!
Photo by Gage Skidmore
Proposition 132 would protect taxpayers by requiring a 60 percent super-majority of voters to pass any initiative which would result in higher taxes. Prior to the Voter Protection Act, voters passed an initiative in 1992 requiring a two-thirds vote at the legislature to raise taxes. In both instances, the legislature should be allowed to act as it sees fit and then incur the wrath or support of the voters. I believe, however, in light of the Voter Protection Act, Proposition 132 provides a necessary tool. It provides a safety valve to protect taxpayers from overly ambitious initiatives, many of which out-of-state- interests have funded.
The initiative process was originally an effective tool for citizens to use to prod an unresponsive government. I admit, that as a former legislator, sometimes the legislature JUST DOESN’T GET IT! The Voter Protection Act, however, has blunted its effectiveness by taking away the safeguards originally provided by Arizona’s judiciary. The passage of Proposition 132 would at least restore some of those safeguards.