1. Travel
You can opt-out at any time. Please refer to our privacy policy for contact information.

Discuss in my forum

Arizona Ballot Propositions - 2010

How Arizona Voted

By

In Arizona's 2010 General Election there were several ballot propositions that were hotly debated. The voters made their decisions. Here were the issues, and how the voters decided.

 

1. Proposition 106 / Healthcare Freedom Act for Arizona

If passed Proposition 106 would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit any law from compelling any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system, allow a person or employer to pay directly for lawful health care services without being penalized or fined, and allow a health care provider to accept direct payment for lawful health care services without being penalized or fined.

Advocates of Proposition 106 said:

  • "You will have A CHOICE in deciding what you want for insurance, your health, your families health."
  • "The Arizona Health Care Freedom Act ensures that patients and families will remain at the center of health care reform - and that our needs and concerns be addressed first, before lobbyists for the health insurance industry and Washington power brokers."
  • "In a free society, people should not be forced to participate in a health insurance plan they do not want."
  • "We can pass the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act. It is simple and has no cost estimates that will have to be revisited and raised. It has no cost."

Opponents of Proposition 106 said:

  • "Right now Arizona has the fourth highest percentage of uninsured children in the nation. PROP 106 moves Arizona backwards and away from providing quality, affordable health care to our children."
  • "Citizens need freedom from health care catastrophe, and they need choices for their health care that are available, universal and affordable."
  • "Should this pass, Arizona citizens would vote away their right to participate in any comprehensive, universal healthcare system such as Improved and Expanded Medicare For All."
  • "Proposition 106 will cost Arizona Taxpayers money that we cannot afford during this difficult time."

-   -   -   -   -

Prior to the election I published a poll on the issue. I posed the question: Will you vote in favor of Proposition 106?
64% of those responding voted: Yes, I am in favor of Prop 106

35% of those responding voted: No, I am opposed to Prop 106
UPDATE November 4, 2010: The voters said yes; this proposition passed.

 

2. Proposition 107 / Arizona Civil Rights Amendment

If passed Proposition 107 would amend the Arizona Constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to or discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

Advocates of Proposition 107 said:

  • "Prop 107 will ensure everyone in Arizona is treated fairly in public education, jobs, and contracts and that no one will be labeled as inferior or unable to compete."
  • "Racial and gender discrimination is never right, whether it is to the benefit or detriment of those involved. There is always a cost to those who are passed over in favor of those receiving the preferences."
  • "When someone is hired they should know that they got the position because they earned it, not because they helped create the right racial percentage."
  • "The Arizona Civil Rights Initiative mirrors the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act and advances civil rights by prohibiting discrimination and preferential treatment based on race, sex, and skin color."

Opponents of Proposition 107 said:

  • "Prop 107 deceptively claims to "level the playing field," but there is no level playing field in educational programs, jobs, and businesses where girls, women and people of color are under-represented."
  • "Passage of PROP 107 will eliminate many programs that support academic progress and improved student achievement."
  • "State employers are already prohibited from considering race or gender in hiring practices. A person cannot be admitted or denied admission to any of Arizona's community colleges or universities based on race or gender in Arizona. The programs we have in place in Arizona schools today are provided only after students have been accepted based on academic merit."
  • "Prop 107, promoted by wealthy out-of-state interests seeking to make us a national test case, would end all state programs that try to improve this situation. We would no longer be able to fund programs that seek to prevent violence against women. We could no longer encourage women and minority-owned business to compete for state contracts. We could no longer encourage and support women students seeking to enter the high-paying (and economically vital) fields of science and engineering."

-   -   -   -   -

Prior to the election I published a poll on the issue. I posed the question: Will you vote in favor of Proposition 107?

63% of those responding voted: Yes, I am in favor of Prop 107

36% of those responding voted: No, I am opposed to Prop 107
UPDATE November 4, 2010: The voters said yes; this proposition passed.

3. Proposition 109 / Arizona Hunting and Fishing Amendment

If passed the Arizona Hunting and Fishing Amendment will make hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife a constitutional right, give the State Legislature exclusive authority to enact laws regulating these activities, prohibit laws that unreasonably restrict hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife or the use of traditional means and methods, and establish hunting and fishing as a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.

Advocates of Proposition 109 said:

  • "Proposition 109 rightly prohibits restrictions generated by emotion, politics or the will of one minority to impose its arbitrary preferences on another. Making hunting and fishing a right instead of a privilege raises the level of scrutiny applied to such restrictions and should help keep the science in wildlife policy."
  • "Proposition 109 will ... elevate wildlife harvest to the level of protection and distinction it deserves, helping to ensure that hunting and fishing remain an integral part of wildlife management in Arizona. Funds generated through sale of tags and licenses to sportsmen and women are essential to wildlife conservation efforts. This amendment protects the Commission's ability to continue to benefit from use of lawful hunting and fishing as management tools."
  • "Yet, there are organizations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and other extreme groups who would like to stop hunting and fishing. We cannot allow this to happen. The impact would be devastating to Arizona's wildlife."
  • "Proposition 109 is an important step in ensuring the Arizona Game & Fish Department's ability to manage and conserve Arizona's wildlife for many years to come. Sportsmen pay for the largest share of the Department's annual state budget through hunting and fishing licenses and tags, excise tax on ammunition, hunting and fishing equipment and watercraft license fees and other matching funds."

Opponents of Proposition 109 said:

  • "Proposition 109 will undermine the current system of wildlife management in Arizona and give science a backseat to politics....Proposition 109 is about the Legislature trying to grab more power, not about doing anything positive for wildlife."
  • "Proposition 109 declares hunting and fishing to be a "preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife." That means the right to hunt will trump the use of sound science to establish wildlife management decisions."
  • "Non-game species and predators such as mountain lions and wolves will be at extreme risk. Predators are important to the biodiversity of our public land, and play an important balancing role in nature that hunting and fishing cannot provide."
  • "Arizona voters need to speak up for Arizona's animals. The proponents of proposition 109 intend to take away initiative rights to silence a majority of Arizona voters and the volunteers who have been so successful in protecting animals through the initiative process."

-   -   -   -   -

Prior to the election I published a poll on the issue. I posed the question: Will you vote in favor of Proposition 109?

53% of those responding voted: Yes, I am in favor of Prop 109

46% of those responding voted: No, I am opposed to Prop 109

UPDATE November 4, 2010: The voters said no; this proposition failed.

4. Proposition 110 / Arizona State Trust Lands

If passed the Arizona State Trust Lands proposition would authorize the sale or lease of state trust land without auction or advertisement in order to protect military installations and operations. It will also allow voter-approved exchanges of state trust land after public notice and hearing if the exchange is related to either protecting military facilities or for land management purposes.

Advocates of Proposition 110 said:

  • "PROP 110 includes several measures of accountability, including requiring land appraisals and assessment and public meetings and review prior to any exchanging of state trust lands, with the added measure of voter approval for each exchange. This level of transparency and accountability will ensure that the citizens of Arizona get a fair exchange."
  • "Passage of Prop 110 on November 2nd will provide an important tool to support our national security, maintain our military bases as important economic engines, and achieve important land and water conservation objectives by securing healthy buffers around our military bases."
  • "Each land exchange must also go to the voters, so the voters have the final say and provide a screen for ensuring that an exchange is truly in the public's interests. This will also help to limit the number of exchange proposals."
  • "Proposition 110 strengthens the partnership among agencies, organizations, and stakeholders at the local, State, and federal levels, with the common goal of preserving the unique and irreplaceable assets of Arizona's network of military facilities and ensuring their long-term sustainability as keystones in the nation's defense and a cornerstone of the State's economy. "

Opponents of Proposition 110 said:

  • No opposing arguments submitted to Secretary of State

-   -   -   -   -

Prior to the election I published a poll on the issue. I posed the question: Will you vote in favor of Proposition 110?

68% of those responding voted: Yes, I am in favor of Prop 110

31% of those responding voted: No, I am opposed to Prop 110

UPDATE November 4, 2010: The voters said no; this proposition failed.

5. Proposition 111 / Arizona Lieutenant Governor

If passed the Arizona Lieutenant Governor Amendment would change the name of the office of Secretary of State to the office of Lieutenant Governor starting in 2015. It will also require that each political party’s nominees for Governor and Lieutenant Governor run on one ticket and be voted on together in the general election.

Advocates of Proposition 111 said:

  • "Forty-five states in America have a Lieutenant Governor, and "truth in advertising" is the primary objective of this constitutional change. Arizona voters should have a clear understanding of our State executive's line of succession."
  • "Our current system designates the Secretary of State as first in line of succession should the acting Governor vacate office. However, this system does not stipulate the Secretary of State be of the same party or share the same policy positions of the vacating - and elected - Governor. This simply does make for fair or efficient government for the citizens of Arizona. "
  • "Arizona is one of five remaining states in the U.S. where a position other than a lieutenant governor is named the successor to the governor. It's time to make Arizona's election process more transparent for one of the most important elected offices in the State."
  • "The chain of succession in state government will be crystal clear in voters' minds and will smooth the transition to the top office should a sitting governor vacate the office for whatever reason. "

Opponents of Proposition 111 said:

  • "The referendum to change the title of Secretary of State to Lieutenant Governor is a ballot issue that seems innocuous enough, but carries unintended consequences and is more than a name change, since it alters the manner in which we choose the Governor. The name change alone is undesirable as it will allow the Lieutenant Governor to place himself/herself in the position of a Governor in waiting, much as the U.S. Vice President, tending largely to public relations and ceremonial duties."
  • "it is inappropriate and unworkable to expect partisan candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to run separately before the primary and then to act as a "team" after the primary. Further, how would this work for a non-partisan candidate for governor with no one filing for lieutenant governor?"

-   -   -   -   -

Prior to the election I published a poll on the issue. I posed the question: Will you vote in favor of Proposition 111?

49% of those responding voted: Yes, I am in favor of Prop 111

50% of those responding voted: No, I am opposed to Prop 111

UPDATE November 4, 2010: The voters said no; this proposition failed.

6. Proposition 112 / Arizona Signature Filing

If passed the Arizona Signature Filing Amendment would change the initiative filing deadline from four months to six months prior to each general election.
 

Advocates of Proposition 112 said:

  • "This measure simply moves the filing deadline for initiative petition signatures up two months, from July 1st of an election year to May 1st. This simple change, with no cost to Arizona taxpayers, will give election officials the necessary time to ensure petition signatures are properly filed, processed, counted and verified."
  • "In a rare display of unity, the Legislature unanimously endorsed this proposal to move the mandated filing deadline for initiative petitions up from July 1 in an election year to May 1."
  • "The effect of this increased deadline for filing initiatives would be to set the bar higher for initiatives to be given ballot consideration."
  • "The two additional months will allow more time for any challenges to petitions and legal reviews. Recent Arizona history has seen initiatives knocked from the ballot because there simply wasn't enough time for the secretary of state, county recorders and the courts to give petitions the necessary review before publicity pamphlets and ballots needed to be printed."

Opponents of Proposition 112 said:

  • No opposing arguments were submitted to the Secretary of State

-   -   -   -   -

Prior to the election I published a poll on the issue. I posed the question: Will you vote in favor of Proposition 112?

77% of those responding voted: Yes, I am in favor of Prop 112

22% of those responding voted: No, I am opposed to Prop 112

UPDATE November 4, 2010: The voters said no; this proposition failed.

7. Proposition 113 / Arizona Save Our Secret Ballot; Let the People Decide

If passed the Arizona Save Our Secret Ballot Amendment would guarantee the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot in elections, designations or authorizations for employee representation (including unions and employee organizations).

Advocates of Proposition 113 said:

  • "If Congress takes away secret ballot elections for employee representation, ordinary workers would be subject to an increase in intimidation tactics by labor unions. Union bosses and organizers would be able to visit employees at the workplace and at their homes and pressure them to publicly accept union representation."
  • "Arguments against the secret ballot can be spun all day, but there is no denying the potential for mischief to coercion if we are to move away from it."
  • "A secret ballot ensures that Arizonans can safely and freely vote for the representative of their choosing without intimidation."
  • "Proposition 113 will not make unionization any more difficult than it is now. Nothing in this proposal is taking away any rights or privileges that would allow employees to properly select union representation."

Opponents of Proposition 113 said:

  • "Why are Corporate CEOs attacking your ability to make your voice heard at work? They want to make it harder for you to bargain for job security, safe working conditions, and decent wages."
  • "Prop 113 would require an election, even if 100 percent of the workers request union representation. Prop 113 would require an election by workers even if the employer agrees that no election is needed. Requiring an election under these circumstances is an unnecessary waste of time and money for both business and employees."
  • "Working Arizonans know that Prop 113 is a misleading ballot initiative that would make it harder for workers to exercise their right to organize. The so called "secret ballot" proposition makes union elections less fair and allows unscrupulous employers to interrogate and threaten workers."
  • "...this constitutional amendment would perpetuate the current system that allows management to repeatedly delay union elections while they intimidate the workers and would forever bar workers from choosing any other method of forming a union."

-   -   -   -   -

Prior to the election I published a poll on the issue. I posed the question: Will you vote in favor of Proposition 113?

71% of those responding voted: Yes, I am in favor of Prop 113

28% of those responding voted: No, I am opposed to Prop 113

UPDATE November 4, 2010: The voters said yes; this proposition passed.

8. Proposition 203 / Arizona Medical Marijuana Act

Legislative Council offered this synopsis: If passed the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act "...would allow a "qualifying patient" who has a "debilitating medical condition" to obtain an "allowable amount of marijuana" from a "nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary" and to possess and use the marijuana to treat or alleviate the debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the condition. The Arizona Department of Health Services (DHS) would be required to adopt and enforce a regulatory system for the distribution of marijuana for medical use, including a system for approving, renewing and revoking the registration of qualifying patients, designated caregivers, nonprofit dispensaries and dispensary agents. The costs of the regulatory system would be paid from application and renewal fees collected, civil penalties imposed and private donations received pursuant to this proposition...."

Advocates of Proposition 203 said:

  • "If Arizona passes this initiative we will become the 15th state to allow seriously ill patients battling diseases like cancer, multiple sclerosis and HIV/AIDS to use medical marijuana, with their doctor's approval, which will relieve their pain and suffering and improve their quality of life."
  • "Unlike California, where it's possible to get a doctor's recommendation to use marijuana for almost any condition, only patients with a limited number of serious and debilitating conditions, including cancer, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer's Disease, glaucoma, Crohn's disease, and multiple sclerosis (MS), will be able to acquire medical marijuana in Arizona."
  • "If Arizona passes this initiative we will become the 15th state to allow seriously ill patients battling diseases like cancer, multiple sclerosis and HIV/AIDS to use medical marijuana, with their doctor's approval, which will relieve their pain and suffering and improve their quality of life."

Opponents of Proposition 203 said:

  • "Because pain is a personal experience that's difficult to confirm with diagnostic tests, recreational marijuana users may complain of "severe or chronic pain" to their doctors and (with their recommendation) get a marijuana registration card. Many states that have implemented medical marijuana laws have found that most applicants cite "severe or chronic pain" as part of their qualifying medical condition."
  • "So limiting prescriptions to licensed physicians obviously won't protect against drug abuse. Neither will rules limiting medical marijuana to specific conditions. Prop 203 lists severe pain as a permitted condition, but pain is easy to fake and impossible to disprove. "
  • "Increased drug use and availability worsens crime problems, and puts public safety severely at risk. Pot shops are targeted by robbers, and increased crime, drug abuse, marijuana impaired drivers and vehicular fatalities involving marijuana use flourish. This proposition is extremely bad for public safety, for public health and is just plain bad public policy."
  • "Beyond being simply unnecessary, Prop 203 sends a dangerous message to our children that illegal drugs are not only acceptable, but beneficial. That message undermines the effort to protect children from exposure to illegal drugs and to educate them about the consequences of destructive behavior like illegal drug use."

 -   -   -   -   -

Prior to the election I published a poll on the issue. I posed the question: Will you vote in favor of Proposition 203?

79% of those responding voted: Yes, I am in favor of Prop 203

20% of those responding voted: No, I am opposed to Prop 203

UPDATE November 23, 2010: The voters said yes; this proposition passed.

9. Proposition 301 / Arizona Land Conservation Fund Transfer

If passed the Arizona Land Conservation Fund Transfer would transfer the balance of money in the land conservation fund, which was established by voters in 1998 as part of the "Growing Smarter Act," to the state general fund.

Advocates of Proposition 301 said:

  • "If passed, Proposition 301 will plug a $124 million hole in the current state budget. Failure will result in further reductions in the programs that receive state support: K-12 schools, universities, low income health care, and prison spending. Or worse, taxpayers will once again be looked upon to close this chronic budget deficit. "

Opponents of Proposition 301 said:

  • "we must trust that the initiatives and funding we approve at the ballot will be respected and instituted as written. If we allow these funds to be raided by the state legislature, then Arizona voters will lose their rights to approve initiatives. Arizona will become a state that is governed by politicians and not its citizens. "
  • "By diverting dollars from this fund, the Legislature hurts both conservation efforts and education - dollars from the Fund go into the Trust where the primary beneficiary is public education. Our budget crisis will someday pass, but the negative impact to a child's education can have a long lasting detrimental legacy and our lands can be lost forever."
  • "By diverting dollars from the Land Conservation Fund, the legislature hurts both conservation efforts and education - dollars from the Land Conservation Fund go into the Trust to benefit the Trust beneficiaries. The primary beneficiary is public education."
  • "...using Growing Smarter funds that were approved by the voters in 1998 to support the acquisition of open space for conservation is a short-term fix that sacrifices a long-term vision....Growing Smarter funds have helped save important state lands like Go John Canyon, the Jewel of the Creek, the McDowell Sonoran Preserve, the Valencia Archeological Site, and the Phoenix Sonoran Preserve."

-   -   -   -   -

Prior to the election I published a poll on the issue. I posed the question: Will you vote in favor of Proposition 301?

27% of those responding voted: Yes, I am in favor of Prop 301
72% of those responding voted: No, I am opposed to Prop 301

UPDATE November 4, 2010: The voters said no; this proposition failed.

10. Proposition 302 / Arizona First Things First Program Repeal

If passed the Arizona First Things First Program Repeal would terminate the Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Board and programs, which were established by voters in 2006 as part of the "Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Initiative." It would require the transfer of money remaining in the early childhood development and education fund on December 1, 2010 to be deposited in the state general fund. Thereafter, it would require tobacco tax money collected pursuant to the initiative to be deposited in the state general fund and used for health and human services for children.

Advocates of Proposition 302 said:

  • "Proposition 302 would redirect 80 cents of our current tobacco taxes that are earmarked for the Early Childhood Development and Health fund to the state general fund to be appropriated for health and human services for children. If passed, Proposition 302 will plug a $324 million hole in the current state budget. Failure will result in further reductions in the programs that receive state support: K-12 schools, universities, low income health care, and prison spending. Or worse, taxpayers will once again be looked upon to close this chronic budget deficit. "
  • "Proposition 302 essentially redirects funds from specialized preschool programs that serve a narrow population to core health and human services programs that will benefit far more children and families."

Opponents of Proposition 302 said:

  • "This repeal will divert over $300 million from the early childhood services program and put it into the general fund. Arizona voters approved a new tobacco tax in order to fund this program and taking these funds betrays the trust of Arizona voters and robs vital services from Arizona's families and children."
  • "Ultimately they [legislators] are taking a tax the people have self-imposed (to fund early childhood development) and putting it in the general fund for use as the legislators see fit. The stated aim is to allocate this money to benefit children, although without guarantee of such. "
  • "...First Things First ... is one of the few resources in Arizona that supports excellent early education, which is a key to ensure that children grow up ready to learn and able to achieve success in school. Our legislature has failed miserably to understand the importance of funding early childhood education programs. "
  • "This program is funded by a special tax on tobacco products and takes no money from the state general fund or the budget of any other program. Our legislators, unwilling to do their jobs and balance the state budget, have decided to do away with this important program that was passed by an overwhelming majority of voters and steal the money for their own purposes, leaving the tax in place."

-   -   -   -   -

Prior to the election I published a poll on the issue. I posed the question: Will you vote in favor of Proposition 302?

28% of those responding voted: Yes, I am in favor of Prop 302

71% of those responding voted: No, I am opposed to Prop 302

UPDATE November 4, 2010: The voters said no; this proposition failed.

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.