Arizona’s Ballot Propositions–Statewide Only

I’m swiping an idea from Eric over at The Tygrrrr Express who just published the California Propositions. It seems like a GREAT idea to publish my state’s propositions so they’re all in one spot and people can review them. CAVEAT: I will emphasize key words in each proposition and explain what a “yes” or “no” vote means on each. How you choose to vote is YOUR CHOICE–as long as you get out and VOTE!

Proposition 100
Official Title: Proposing an Amendment to Article IX of the Arizona Constitution by Adding a New Section 24 Relating to a Prohibition of Any New Real Property Sale or Transfer Tax in Arizona.

Descriptive Title: Prohibits State, County, City, Town, Municipal or Other State Political Subdivision From Imposing Any New Tax, Fee, or Other Assessment On the Sale, Purchase, Transfer or Other Conveyance of Any Interest in Real Estate After December 31, 2007/

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of prohibiting any new tax, fee, or other assessment on the sale, purchase or other conveyance of real estate after December 31, 2007.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law, which allows taxes on the sale or transfer of real estate.

Simply put, this proposition is meant to stop the imposition of additional taxes on the homeowner, in particular a “transfer tax” when the property is bought/sold. If passed, it will put a stop to a double taxation situation wherein you’re taxed on the sale/purchase of a property, as well as paying the property tax.

********************

Proposition 101
Official Title: Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article II of the Arizona Constitution by Adding Section 26 of Article II; Relating to Freedom of Choice in Health Care.

Descriptive Title: PROHIBITS (this is a biggie key word here folks, read this CAREFULLY) Laws That: Restrict Person’s Choice of Private Health Care Systems or Private Plans; Interfere With Person’s or Entity’s Right to Pay Directly for Lawful Medical Services; Impose a Penalty or Fine for Choosing to Obtain or Decline Health Care Coverage or For Participation in Any Health Care System or Plan.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of prohibiting laws that restrict a person’s choice of private health care systems or private plans, interfere with a person or an entity’s right to pay for lawful medical services and impose a penalty or fine for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any health care system or plan.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding a person or entity’s health care choices.

Simply put–this is a two-fold law. On the one hand, the current law apparently has the right to penalize a person for choosing their own health care. This proposition seeks to overturn that restriction and make it illegal–constitutionally–to penalize a person for choosing and paying for their own health care rather than being told who they can see or what services they can pay for. It is essentially a first strike proposal which helps YOU retain who YOU want to provide your medical services rather than the state or any other entity telling you who you HAVE to utilize. It also keeps you from being penalized for exercising your choice for your care.

********************

Proposition 102
Official Title: Senate Concurrent Resolution 1042 – Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending the Constitution, by adding Article 30; Relating to Marriage

Descriptive Title: Defines That Only a Union of One Man and One Woman Shall be Valid or Recognized as a Marriage in This State.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, while maintaining the current statutory law of the State of Arizona, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current statutory law of the State of Arizona, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex, but would not amend the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Simply put, same sex marriage is currently illegal in Arizona; however, it is not a part of the state Constitution. This proposal would make that law a Constitional Amendment and thereby protect it from depredations such as we’ve seen in California, Vermont and Massachusetts. It is worth noting the people of Arizona have consistently voted to keep the current law as the law.

********************

Proposition 105
Official Title: Majority Rule-Let the People Decide Act-Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article IV, Part 1, Constitution of Arizona, by Adding Section 1.1 Relating to Initiative Measures and Requiring That Any Mandatory Tax or Spending Increase be Enacted by a Majority of Qualified Electors (more key words here folks).

Descriptive Title: Requires an Initiative Measure That Establishes, Imposes or Raises a Tax, Fee or Other Revenue, or Mandates a Spending Obligation, Whether on a Private Person, Labor Organization, Other Private Legal Entity or State, Shall Not Become Law Unless the Measure is Approved by a Majority of Qualified Electors Registered to Vote.

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.

Simply put, this is worded in such a way as to take away your privilege to vote on a measure. It would take the power of the voters out of the hands of the voters on monetary issues and put it in the hands of the government wherein only the government has a say on what taxes can be imposed. “Electors” herein is meant to be representative in the same manner as “Electors” in a presidential race. If you want to retain control over your money and your taxes and what you’re charged, a “no” vote is the only vote.

********************

Proposition 200
Official Title: Payday Loan Reform Act

Descriptive Title: Extends Payday Licensing Program Indefinitely; Allows Electronic Debit Agreements; Prohibits Services Over 35 Days; Requires English or Spanish Agreements; Prohibits Certain Fees; Requires Payment Plan if Requested; Prohibits Arrangements With Customers Having Outstanding Repayment Plans; Allows Licensee to Make Other Loans; Requires Licensee to Maintain Minimum and Maximum Net Worth.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of repealing the July 1, 2010 termination date for the existing “payday loan” licensing program thus allowing it to continue indefinitely, allowing payday loan licenses to provide electronic debit agreement services, prohibiting services over 35 days, requiring payday loan agreements be in English or Spanish, prohibiting certain fees, permitting only one payday loan transaction with a customer each business day, requiring a payment plan if requested by the customer, prohibiting arrangements with customers having outstanding repayment plans, allowing licensees to make other loans and requiring licensee applicants to maintain a minimum net worth of at least $50,000 per location up to a maximum of $1,000,000.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding payday loans, which are to terminate July 1, 2010.

Simply put, this is designed to halt the abuse of payday loans by customers and the abuse of customers by payday loan outlets. It requires more flexibility for loan repayment and prohibits usurious interest rates. Unfortunately, it also panders to the illegals who refuse to learn English, as well.

********************

Proposition 201
Official Title: Homeowner’s Bill of Rights

Descriptive Title: Allows Prospective Dwelling Buyer Lawsuit; Permitting Lawsuits Despite Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreements; Prohibits Seller Attorney Fees; Shortens Notice and Response Time; Requires Seller Inspection and Licensed Contractor; Requires Seller Contract Provide 10-Year Warranty; Seller Must Disclose Conflicts; Gives Buyer Cancellation Rights; Expands Time to File Improvements Suit; Expands Purchaser Remedies.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of granting “prospective buyers” a right to sue over a dwelling action, permitting lawsuits despite alternative dispute resolution provisions in sales contracts, shortening buyer purchaser notice and seller response period before and after filing defects lawsuit, requiring seller to inspect dwelling after receiving notice, requiring any seller offer to include repair or replacement option that must be performed by a licensed contractor, eliminating seller right to receive attorney fees and costs if the seller prevails, mandating seller to provide ten year warranty of materials and workmanship,requiring newly constructed dwelling contract to include disclosure of seller’s financial relationship with a financial institution, disallowing seller from requiring a buyer deposit unless contract allows 100 day cancellation period, extending from eight to ten years the time to file suit against any person making improvements to the real property, and expanding remedies available to an owner who is successful in a dwelling action against the seller.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding purchaser dwelling actions.

Simply put, this is designed to take away all choice a homeowner may have as to who they hire to make any repairs/improvements to their home. At such time as the homeowner decides to sell their home, it puts extraordinary burdens on them prior to sale. It will have an impact on current home sales as well as new home sales. It also allows people who DO NOT BUY the home to sue the homeowner as if they had indeed purchased the home. It leaves a homeowner wishing to sell their home completely vulnerable with no recourse while the buyer or alleged buyer has all recourse.

********************

Proposition 202
Official Title: Amending Title 13, Chapter 20, Arizona Revised Statutes, by Amending Sections 13-2008, 13-2009 and 13-2010; and Amending Title 23, Chapter 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, by Amending Sections 23-211, 23-212, 23-213 and 23-214 and Adding Section 23-215.

Descriptive Title: Modifies Laws (more of those code words people–pay attention!) That Suspend or Revoke Business Licenses for Employers Who Knowingly or Intentionally Employ an Unauthorized Alien; Increases Penalties on Identity Theft Related to Employment; Adds Fines on Employers Who Pay Improperly Reported Cash Wages; Establishes Presumption Favoring Employer That Verifies Employee Eligibility Under Federal Law.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of modifying the laws covering employers who knowingly or intentionally employ “unauthorized aliens,” suspending or revoking licenses of businesses that employ unauthorized aliens, adding penalties on employers who fail to properly report cash wages, increasing penalties for identity theft related to employment and establishing a presumption favoring an employer that verifies employee eligibility under federal law.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining Arizona’s current employment laws that suspend or revoke business licenses for employers who knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.

Simply put, a yes vote undermines the current employer sanctions law, a law voted in by the people. This one is written to be purposely misleading, hoping to revoke a law already on the books, and which has been challenged repeatedly in court. Such challenges have been driven back and the law stands. Now, the intent by the border lobby groups, is to trick you, the voter, into repealing the law you already voted in by using such misleading wording.

********************

Proposition 300
Descriptive Title: Provides for an Increase in the Salaries of State Legislators From $24,000 to $30,000 Per Year.

“Shall the Recommendation of the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers Concerning Legislative Salaries be Accepted?” Yes/No

Recommendations, if Approved by the Electors, Shall Become Effective at the Beginning of the Next Regular Legislative Session Without Any Other Authorizing Legislation.

Current Salary – $24,000

Proposed Salary – $30,000

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of raising State Legislators’ salaries to $30,000 per year.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of keeping State Legislators’ salaries at $24,000 per year.

Simply put, do we give the bums a raise or not?

********************

Those are the statewide propositions on this year’s ballot for Arizona. Mark your ballots carefully. Think before you write. Above all, VOTE!

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: