Arizona is a special state, with a unique heritage. When we were founded in 1912, at the height of the American progressive movement, our state’s founding fathers built a dynamic Constitution. 

In October of 1910, 52 Arizona delegates gathered in Phoenix to ratify a new Constitution that could then be submitted to the U.S. Congress for approval. Among the involved at the gathering were “both the Territorial Democratic Party and organized labor,” who joined forces to champion “direct legislation by the people.” 

Among their most notable contributions to Arizona’s constitution were the “initiative, referendum, and recall measures,” which were built with the intent of putting Arizonans in the driver’s seat, brushing aside the special interests of the time: big banks, railroad companies, and corrupt politicians. 

Ironically, in our time, the progressive policies put in place by our founders in the early 20th century have been warped and taken advantage of by out-of-state special interests. 

Voter Protection Act

The Voter Protection Act, passed by voters into law in 1998, was advertised as — you guessed it — a set of protections that would shield Arizona voters from special interests. This translated to further restrictions on the elected governor and Legislature from amending or repealing statewide referendums, setting up a system that allowed initiatives to pass with little path for recourse or even minor amendment. 

Since its passage, the Legislature’s hands have been tied when initiatives that duly-elected representatives of the people found troubling passed into law, even by the slimmest of margins. This has had a damaging effect on Arizona’s electoral system: every two to four years, initiatives have become life-or-death battles on big issues that could easily be misleadingly portrayed to the general public by big spenders. 

Out-of-state special interests

Despite its broad progressive conception in the early 1900s, Arizona’s initiative process has transformed into the antithesis of its original intent. 

In the age of digital advertising, global communications, and a truly international economy, out-of-state special interest groups have come to dominate Arizona’s system of direct democracy. At some point we must ask: direct democracy for whom?

Just this year it was that just .7% (yes, point-seven percent) of the Yes on Proposition 208’s campaign contributions came from in-state individual Arizona donors. The largest union in America, the Washington D.C.-based National Education Association, gave nearly $8,000,000 to the campaign. A Portland, Oregon-based special interest called Stand for Children donated just over $9,000,000. The Open Society Foundation, the infamous George Soros-founded global special interest organization, gave over $500,000. They reported an annual revenue of $376,000,000 in 2018. 

In 2018, Proposition 127, an initiative written in the mold of a California energy mandate that was projected to raise energy prices on working- and middle-class Arizonans, was pushed nearly entirely by California billionaire and 2020 Democrat Presidential candidate Tom Steyer. 

Overall, his campaign $23,931,082.65 on the initiative, which eventually failed spectacularly. Another $39 million was expended by the No on 127 campaign so that Arizonans would be better educated on the truth about the measure.  

The total spending on this race could’ve just as easily been on more productive ends, including the installation of at least 4,701 5kW solar panels, producing over 23,500kW of clean power. 

“It’s notable that this initiative is anything but an Arizona product. This proposal is being forced on our voters by somebody who has no one’s interests in mind but his own,” Democrat state Representative Cesar Chavez at the time. “He and his political strategists have created this initiative as a mirror image of a regulation already adopted in their home state. But I don’t believe a California plan is necessarily the right fit for Arizona.” 

Reforming the process

Arizona’s initiative process as written is a ticket for out-of-state special interests to inject their influence into Arizona politics and make our state their policy playground. It has wasted tens of millions of dollars that could have been spent much more productively. The time is now for initiative process reform. 

So what options are there? A published by the Arizona Junior Fellows explores some possibilities.

Arizona could reform the signature-collection process for initiatives, incorporating a geographic distribution requirement that ensures that all regions and parts of Arizona are properly incorporated into the process of getting initiatives on the ballot. Simply canvassing metro Phoenix and metro Tucson frays relations between urban and rural interests, placing policies with statewide implications on the ballot without statewide buy-in.

We must also take a look at the minimum voter passage threshold. Currently it requires only 50%-plus-one (a simple majority) to institute sweeping legislation into law. Colorado requires a 55% threshold, Nevada requires a simple majority like Arizona but also a requirement that it must pass in two consecutive elections, and other states such as Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, and Massachusetts have differing but nonetheless more rigorous processes for passage. 

Further, Arizona’s elected legislators could revisit allowing the Legislature to further amend and modify passed initiatives. This could be done by amending the Voter Protection Act, so that it takes a supermajority (75%) of legislators in both houses to properly amend a passed initiative. This would ensure that any amendments are broadly agreed upon. 

Necessary bipartisan cooperation

Ultimately, this must be a bipartisan, coalition-building effort. We must seek a long-term solution that crosses party lines and puts Arizona voters first. We cannot afford to mirror the tactics that special interests have used to bring us to this point.

It’s time to reform our initiative process in this upcoming legislative session so that our state government truly reflects the will of Arizona voters, not billionaires and special interests. 

Joe Pitts is the program director for and a student at Arizona State University.

The post Restore power to the people and reject special interests appeared first on �鶹��ýӳ��.

A from the Arizona �鶹��ýӳ�� Foundation surveys Arizona’s citizen initiative process and looks at how it compares to other states with direct democracy systems, the shortcomings of the system, and potential reforms and remedies. 

The paper assesses the extent to which out-of-state interests influence the Arizona ballot, and whether reforms to the signature gathering process, single-subject rule, and vote thresholds would positively affect direct democracy in Arizona. Proponents of the initiative process highlight the ability to have a direct impact in the way the government runs and makes decisions. As opposed to representative democracy, voting on an initiative gives citizens the opportunity to have a larger impact per person on government policy. When an initiative, whether proposing a statutory change or a constitutional amendment, is put on the ballot, participating voters can vote directly on the issue at hand. 

The paper, however, finds that there are some potential downsides to the process.

Other states with a citizen initiative process have seen these downsides and have worked to amend their processes.

Geographic distribution requirements

There are many issues with Arizona’s initiative process that other states have already addressed. One such issue is that of geographic distribution of the petition signatures. In Arizona there is no requirement regarding how many signatures must come from different legislative or congressional districts.

Maryland, for example, that no more than 50% of signatures can come from any one county or the city of Baltimore. Other states’ requirements are more restrictive, where there can be no more than 25% of signatures obtained from a single county. These restrictions aim to protect against outside influences coming into the state and receiving a disproportionate number of signatures from populous areas, thus underrepresenting folks who live elsewhere. 

The downside of this potential reform is that it also makes it more difficult for petitioners to get the number of signatures needed to make it onto the ballot.

Possibility of reigning in out-of-state petition circulators

Another issue that arises is the ability of interest groups to rely on petition circulators from out of state who work temporarily as petition circulators in Arizona. Many of the states that have an initiative process have restricted the use of outside circulators because they want the circulators to have a vested interest in the changes being made in the state.  

However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in struck down an earlier attempt at a residency requirement in Arizona because it was not narrowly tailored to meet a state interest and was therefore ruled to be unconstitutional. This makes it more difficult to remedy the situation, but if the Arizona Legislature were able to create a law that was narrowly tailored to further the state’s interest then it might be able to uphold the restriction as in.  

A simple majority vs. a supermajority 

Ballot initiatives in Arizona, whether proposing a new statute or an amendment to the state constitution, can pass if they earn one more ‘yes’ vote than ‘no’ votes. That’s not the case in all states.

The paper looks at examples in other states where measures must receive more than Arizona’s 50-percent-plus-1 requirement or must receive a certain percentage of votes cast in the entire election, guarding against a significant undervote determining an outcome. 

“For example, in Massachusetts, statutory initiatives and constitutional amendments can pass with a simple majority, but only if the total number of votes cast on the measure equals at least 30 percent of the total votes cast in the entire election,” the paper says. “As explained by the National Council of State Legislatures, this means that if 100 voters cast votes in the election, at least 30 of them must cast a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote on the initiative. If that minimum number of participatory votes is not achieved, the initiative fails.” 

“With Arizona’s citizen initiative process increasingly becoming an attractive venue for out-of-state interests to advance their agenda, it is worth examining whether and how to improve and strengthen the system to ensure it represents the best interests of the state,” Arizona �鶹��ýӳ�� Foundation Executive Director Garrick Taylor said. “This paper looks at reforms implemented by other states to preserve the integrity of their initiative systems that lawmakers in �鶹��ýӳ��ight consider. In light of Arizona’s Voter Protection Act, measures adopted by voters are nearly irreversible and, in the case of negative unintended consequences, nearly irreparable. Legislators and voters ought to consider whether such a high-risk form of lawmaking needs improvement.” 

The paper is part of the Foundation’s Business Ballot project, which focuses on research related to Arizona initiatives, campaigns, and elections. 

The research was conducted and paper authored by �鶹��ýӳ�� Foundation Junior Fellows Taylor Hersch and Stephen Matter.

The post New paper looks at Arizona’s initiative process, potential subject of reform next legislative session appeared first on �鶹��ýӳ��.