House Bill 4115, legislation by Speaker of the House Steve Montenegro is scheduled for consideration by the full state House, while companion legislation in the state Senate by Sen. T.J. Shope is similarly ready for consideration by the full Senate.

Here’s a look at how the bills would align the local initiative process with the well-established processes at a state level and protect local economic development efforts.

Bills align local initiative processes with established statewide initiative processes

House Bill 4115, introduced by Speaker of the House Steve Montenegro, seeks to standardize the regulation of initiative and referendum measures across Arizona by expanding state-level requirements to municipal and county levels. A mirror bill, SB 1489 by state Sen. T.J. Shope, has been introduced in the Senate.

The legislation focuses on three primary pillars:

• Increased transparency for paid petition circulators
• Mandatory financial disclosures for spending-related measures
• The creation of regulatory parity between state and local ballot processes

Supported by a broad coalition of the Arizona business community, the bill aims to protect the integrity of the ballot from out-of-state interests, support local decisionmaking, and provide voters with clearer information regarding the fiscal impacts of proposed local laws.

Key regulatory changes

HB 4115 and SB 1489 amend several sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes (Title 19) to ensure that the standards applied to statewide measures are nearly as practicable for local jurisdictions.

Paid circulator requirements

The bill introduces identification and disclosure protocols for paid circulators to ensure voters understand who is soliciting their signatures, similar to the protocols in other states.

Financial disclosure and revenue sources

A critical component for local fiscal management is the new requirement for measures that mandate expenditures. Any municipal or county initiative or referendum that proposes a mandatory expenditure, establishes a specific fund, or allocates funding must:

• Provide a disclosure of the expenditure or allocation.
• Include this funding disclosure within the 200-word initiative description provided to voters.

Economic impact and business community perspectives

The Arizona business community has signaled strong support for HB 4115 and SB 1489, viewing it as a defense against out-of-state activists who leverage local processes to advance narrow political agendas that may conflict with regional economic development.

Proponent coalition

The bill is backed by a diverse group of organizations, including:

• Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry
• Arizona Restaurant Association
• Greater Phoenix Chamber
• Greater Phoenix Economic Council (GPEC)
• United Dairymen of Arizona
• Valley Partnership
• Local chambers of commerce across Arizona

Leadership insights

• Danny Seiden, president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry: “These bills contain commonsense reforms that protect the integrity of the ballot, ensure voters know who is behind an initiative, and provide clearer information about proposals that would require new taxpayer-funded spending.”
• Courtney Coolidge, executive vice president of the Arizona Chamber: Coolidge has noted that out-of-state activists exploit the lack of guardrails at the local level. The goal of HB 4115 and SB 1489 is to ensure state and local processes are “equally rigorous” to prevent economic strategies from being “sidelined.”

Case study in local volatility: The Marana data center dispute

Current litigation in the Town of Marana underscores the administrative and legal friction that the legislation aims to mitigate through clearer standards.

• The conflict: Residents filed a lawsuit against the Town of Marana after the town clerk rejected a referendum targeting a proposed data center.
• The technicality: The organizers behind the petition campaign argue that their submission was out of compliance and should thus be withdrawn. Supporters not affiliated with the organized referendum campaign, however,  argue that the petitions cannot be withdrawn.
• Business implication: Such disputes demonstrate how local economic development projects can be stalled by procedural ambiguities in the referendum process, highlighting the need for the consistent standards proposed in HB 4115 and SB 1489.

Public sentiment and voter data

Polling conducted by Cygnal in December 2025 indicates that the provisions in HB 4115 and SB 1489 align with a vast majority of Arizona voters:

• 90% believe ballot initiatives should be driven by Arizona residents rather than out-of-state organizations.
• 84% support requiring paid circulators to wear visible identification badges.
• 80% support requiring initiatives that mandate spending to identify a specific funding source.
• 70% support achieving parity between state and local initiative requirements.

The case for passage

• Uniformity is priority: Standardization of initiative processes reduces the ability of activists to target smaller municipalities with less-regulated processes.
• Fiscal accountability: Future local initiatives will be required to disclose potential costs of their proposals, potentially reducing the risk of unfunded mandates that impact the local tax base.
• Bipartisan support: HB 4115 passed the House Federalism, Military Affairs & Elections Committee with a 5-2 bipartisan vote. SB 1489 was cleared by the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee. Both bills are ready for consideration by the full House and Senate, respectively.
• Grassroots efforts unaffected: Initiative campaigns by local residents are not affected by the provisions of the legislation.

Photo courtesy Elizabeth Jenkins, licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

The post Explainer: How HB 4115 and SB 1489 strengthen transparency and accountability in local initiative processes appeared first on 91ֱ��.

A labor union-affiliated activist group called Worker Power is attempting to secure a spot for an initiative on the fall ballot in Glendale that business groups say would jeopardize thousands of tourism jobs in that city.

City refuses petitions

The Glendale City Clerk refused to accept the group’s petitions to place this measure on the ballot due to the proposal’s violation of the state constitution’s provision that citizen initiatives must be limited to a single subject. That constraint is due to voters’ passage of Proposition 129 in 2022. Prior to the passage of the 2022 measure, a single subject only applied to ballot questions that sought to amend the state constitution. 

The Worker Power group is suing the city over the decision to refuse the petition.

What the initiative would do

• Mandated Wage: Hotel and event center workers would be paid at least $20 per hour, with the wage increased annually depending on changes in the cost of living. 
• Limits on square footage: The amount of square footage a room attendant can clean in a workday would be capped. If the worker exceeds that amount, their pay is doubled for the day.
• Recordkeeping: Hoteliers will have to keep three years’ worth of detailed records of room attendants’ work history, including which rooms the worker cleaned and the amount of square footage. 
• Service charges: If a hotel or event center collects service charges, those funds must be distributed directly to the worker who performed the service for which those fees were collected. Hoteliers could not use service charges to raise the base level of pay for all workers. 
• Wage investigators: The Glendale city government would have to establish a new department to investigate employers and conduct studies of workers.

Potential consequences

Business community stakeholders say if the measure were to pass that the city would be forced either to reduce services like public safety or raise taxes to establish the new labor office that is required under the initiative. 

Hoteliers would also have to face the decision between raising room rates or cutting jobs in order to afford these new regulations. 

The increased rates would make Glendale less attractive to travelers and meeting and convention planners. 

Business groups support city position

Business groups have filed briefs with the trial court in support of the city clerk’s decision to refuse the petitions on the grounds that the proposal violates the single subject rule.

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry says, “The Initiative is the poster child of log-rolling… It lumps numerous, unrelated provisions into a single initiative which will force voters to support or oppose it, even though they may agree or disagree with some parts of it… This Court should uphold the City Clerk’s rejection of the Initiative.”

The Arizona Lodging and Tourism Association and the American Hotel Lodging Association filed a joint brief. Those groups said, “The Minimum Wage Act is an unconstitutional hodgepodge of burdensome regulations, from minimum-wage increases, to limits on working hours, to the establishment of an entirely new bureaucratic department, and more. Faced with this sort of constitutionally infirm ballot initiative, the City Clerk had both the authority and the obligation to reject it.” 

Decision soon

A decision on whether the measure will appear on the ballot is expected by Friday. The losing party could choose to appeal the decision.

The post Business groups warn that proposed Glendale ballot initiative will cost jobs appeared first on 91ֱ��.

Maricopa County voters in November will vote on Proposition 486 and decide whether the expenditure limit for the Maricopa County Community College District should be raised.

Current law 

In 1980, Arizona voters established an expenditure limit to restrict how much a community college district, including Maricopa Community Colleges, can spend, even if funding is available. 

• The expenditure limit for Arizona community colleges is calculated each year based on veteran expenditures in 1979-80 multiplied by factors for inflation and enrollment. 
• The current base limit sits just above $52 million. 
• A community college district that exceeds its expenditure limitation is subject to penalties based on the percentage of the excess expenditures.

The proposed change 

Proposition 486 will permanently adjust the base on which the expenditure limit is calculated from approximately $52 million to roughly $105 million. 

• Adjusting the base limit will allow the community colleges to use their existing budget without penalty. 
• This adjustment will account for increases in workforce programs, technology infrastructure, career and technical education (CTE), non-credit training, baccalaureate degrees, and programs that serve high school students.

“It’s important to remember that Proposition 486 isn’t a request for additional funding or for increased taxes,” said Courtney Coolidge, vice president of government affairs for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, which is supporting the measure. “It simply allows Maricopa Community Colleges to continue supporting students with a top-notch education without having to cut $100 million out of the system budget.”

The business community view 

The Chamber submitted a statement supporting Proposition 486 for the publicity pamphlet that contains arguments for and against the measure that will be mailed to voters before the election.

“The Maricopa Community College District (MCCCD) plays a crucial role in meeting the needs of our diverse and growing workforce. As one of the top employers in the region, MCCCD supported 108,295 jobs in the 2021-2022 fiscal year alone. It also contributed $7.9 billion in income to the Maricopa County economy, equivalent to 2.3% of the county’s total gross regional product,” the Chamber said. “Prop. 486 will allow Maricopa County’s community colleges to access the necessary funds needed to meet growing demand without imposing additional taxes on residents.”

The post Maricopa County voters to decide whether expenditure limits for Maricopa Community Colleges should be increased appeared first on 91ֱ��.

Two questions with implications for the mandated hourly minimum wage in Arizona could appear on the November ballot if a citizen initiative is determined to have collected enough valid signatures. 

One measure’s place on the ballot is already secured by virtue of being referred to the ballot by the state Legislature. 

Proposition 138 

Proposition 138 was referred to the ballot by lawmakers following the passage of SCR 1040. 

The proposition would permit workers who regularly earn tips to be paid 25% less than the state mandated hourly minimum wage if their total earnings including tips exceed the minimum wage by at least $2 for all hours worked. 

Under current law, employers can pay their tipped workers $3 less than the minimum wage as long as their hourly pay plus tips would total at least the minimum wage for all hours worked. 

One Fair Wage Act 

Activists submitted signatures to secure a place on the ballot for their “One Fair Wage Act,” a measure that includes both changes to the pay of tipped workers and the minimum wage for all workers. 

The quantity and quality of the submitted signatures are still being assessed by state officials. 

Under the initiative, voters are asked whether the statewide minimum wage should be raised by $1 in January 2025 and by $1 again in January 2026. The statewide minimum wage is already adjusted every January depending on the previous year’s rate of inflation, a process that would go unchanged. 

The initiative would also phase out employers’ ability to pay their tipped workers less than the minimum wage before accounting for tips. 

Chamber: Jobs at risk if citizen initiative were to pass

Courtney Coolidge, the vice president of government affairs for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, says the One Fair Wage Act would result in a litany of negative consequences if it were to become law. 

“Employers will have only bad choices, and consumers and workers will pay the price,” Coolidge said. “Imagine businesses where workers depend on tips, like restaurants. Restaurateurs will be forced either to raise menu prices, impose service charges, or cut workers’ hours. That means fewer jobs and higher prices for patrons, who likely will be less inclined to tip on top of the higher prices. Prices are already too high – this would just make things worse.” 

Coolidge said lessons can be learned from a similar measure in Washington, D.C. Restaurants there have cut at least 1,300 jobs – 4.4% of their workforce – since a phase-out of their tip credit began. The average price of dining out rose 5.6%, considerably larger than the 3.4% increase nationally.  

The Arizona Chamber is endorsing Proposition 138. 

“The proposal is good for our small businesses, too. By allowing employers to count tips as part of the wage calculation, Prop. 138 helps businesses manage labor costs effectively, promoting job retention and growth. The hospitality and service industries, which heavily rely on tipped employees, can better sustain their operations and continue providing jobs that are vital to our local economy,” the Chamber wrote in a submission for the publicity pamphlet published by the Secretary of State’s Office. 

In testimony for SCR 1040, the legislation to refer the measure to the ballot, other groups supporting it included the Arizona Restaurant Association, the Arizona Beverage Association, the Arizona Lodging and Tourism Association, and the Greater Phoenix Chamber.

The post Two wage-related measures could have vastly different effects appeared first on 91ֱ��.

Frustrated by the effects of municipal governments’ unwillingness to adequately address a growing homelessness problem, Arizona lawmakers in 2024 passed HCR 2023, which gives voters this November the chance to decide whether property owners should receive financial relief for government’s failures. 

Proposition 312 

Set to take effect in the 2025 tax year and continue through 2035, Proposition 312 introduces a new refund mechanism aimed at reimbursing property owners for expenses incurred in mitigating the effects of a public nuisance on an owner’s private property or for the expenses incurred due to a city’s failure to address homelessness and other issues like panhandling and loitering in thoroughfares. 

• Proposition 312 allows property owners to apply for a refund once per tax year for documented, reasonable expenses.
  
• If the measure passes, property owners would apply for a refund to the Arizona Department of Revenue, which would then notify the relevant city, town, or county. The local authorities then have the option to accept or reject the refund request. If the request is accepted or remains unacknowledged for at least 30 days, ADOR will pay the refund.
  
• In cases where the refund is rejected, property owners can pursue further legal action to determine their entitlement to the refund.
  
• Refunds are based on the expenses incurred by the property owner that result from the city’s failure to address existing nuisance laws, but the refund amount will be limited to what the owner paid in primary property taxes for the previous year.
  
• Property owners can reapply in subsequent tax years to claim the remaining balance. If the nuisance or policy persists, additional refunds can be requested in future tax years if a settlement is not reached with the local government. 

The state treasurer is responsible for withholding the refund amount from the transaction privilege tax revenues owed to the respective city, town, or county. (Transaction privilege taxes are sales taxes.) These funds are then credited to ADOR as reimbursement for the issued refunds. 

Relief for property owners 

“Proposition 312 offers financial relief for property owners who bear the brunt of public nuisances or inadequate enforcement of laws by local authorities,” said Courtney Coolidge, vice president of government affairs for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, which is supporting the measure. “By creating financial consequences for cities, we’re hopeful that Proposition 312 will hold local governments accountable for maintaining public order and move them to act.” 

In a submission for the pamphlet published by the Secretary of State’s Office that features arguments for and against the various questions that will appear on the ballot, the Chamber says that “Prop. 312 helps ensure we don’t face some of the problems major cities like Portland, San Francisco and Los Angeles have experienced.” 

Supporters and opponents 

In addition to the Arizona Chamber, groups that registered support for the legislation that referred the measure to the ballot include the Goldwater Institute, the Arizona chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business, and the Arizona Food Marketing Alliance, a trade association for grocery and convenience stores. 

The Arizona League of Cities and Towns said it was opposed to the referral. In in February before the state House Ways and Means Committee, lobbyist Jane Ahern said cities were limited in their ability to enforce urban camping bans due to a decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Grants Pass v. Johnson that found that bans on urban camping violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. 

The U.S. Supreme Court last month, however, overturned the Ninth Circuit decision. 

Writing for the majority in the 6-3 decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch said, “The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.”

The post Under Proposition 312, property owners could be eligible for tax refund if cities fail to enforce public nuisance laws appeared first on 91ֱ��.

Voters in Maricopa County in November will decide whether a sales tax first approved in 1985 should be extended for an additional 20 years. 

Proposition 479 

Proposition 479 asks Maricopa County voters whether the current half-cent sales tax for transportation should be extended. The measure does not impose any new taxes, nor does it mandate the use of certain types of vehicles or restrict the sale of vehicles depending on their engine type. 

Voters first approved the tax in 1985 and extended it for 20 years in 2004 when they passed Proposition 400. Unless extended by voters, the tax would terminate at the end of 2025. 

Maricopa County measure required legislative and gubernatorial action 

The extension’s appearance on the fall ballot was made possible only by a 2023 vote of the state Legislature and Gov. Katie Hobbs’ signature on enabling legislation. 

Maricopa County is the only Arizona county that requires legislative and gubernatorial approval before a transportation excise tax question can appear on a countywide ballot. 

The state Legislature in 2022 approved a bill to send an extension to voters in a March 2023 special election, but that bill was vetoed by then-Gov. Doug Ducey. 

Campaign: Passage integral to county’s economic growth 

“The passage of Proposition 479 is an integral part of Maricopa County’s continued economic growth and the overall success of the region,” said Pam Kehaly, CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona and co-chair of the Connect Maricopa campaign committee. “Investing in critical transportation infrastructure will allow the region to appropriately plan for future growth so residents can travel with ease and not experience the burden of long commute times. I am proud of the coalition of business and community associations that are actively supporting this effort and we look forward to sharing our message with Maricopa County voters.” 

Arizona Chamber: Funding stream instrumental in county’s development 

In a statement filed for the publicity pamphlet that will be sent to county voters, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry said the funding stream made possible by the tax has made possible the construction of new streets and freeways during a “period of incredible growth.” 

Maricopa County is the country’s fastest growing county, and the state has grown by more than 2 million residents in the past 20 years. 

“Passing Prop. 479 is imperative to ensure that these infrastructure investments continue, keeping our region at the forefront of economic growth and prosperity. Safeguards have been put in place to allow taxpayers to use their preferred modes of transportation, ensuring no single modality gets a disproportionate share of public resources,” the Chamber said. 

Strong business community support 

In addition to the Arizona Chamber, Proposition 479 is supported by the Arizona chapter of the commercial real estate group NAIOP, the Arizona Realtors Association, the Arizona Multihousing Association, the Arizona Rock Products Association, the Arizona Trucking Association, the Arizona chapter of the Associated General Contractors, the Greater Phoenix Chamber, Greater Phoenix Leadership, the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, American Council of Engineering Companies of Arizona, real estate development group Valley Partnership, and the Greater Phoenix Economic Council.

The post Maricopa County voters to decide on transportation tax extension appeared first on 91ֱ��.

Arizona voters in November will decide whether petition signatures gathered by backers of citizen initiatives should come from a broader cross-section of Arizona.

Current law

Proposition 134 would require signatures to be collected from each of the state’s 30 legislative districts. Under current law, petition circulators can collect signatures without regard to the legislative district in which signers reside.

Also under current law, proponents of a constitutional amendment must gather signatures from at least 15% of the qualified electors statewide. Proponents of a statutory measure must gather signatures from at least 10% of the qualified electors statewide.

The proposed change

Under Proposition 134, the total number of required valid signatures to be collected won’t change, nor will the differentiated threshold for constitutional amendments and statutes. But if Proposition 134 passes, proponents will have to hit the percentage threshold in each of the 30 legislative districts.

The number of qualified electors is determined by the number of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election. That is left unchanged by Proposition 134.

The referral process

The 56^th Arizona Legislature, which adjourned last month, sent 11 measures to the November ballot for voters to decide. In addition to Proposition 134, lawmakers are asking voters to weigh in on subjects like a governor’s emergency powers, judicial retention elections, administrative rulemaking, and much more.

Ballot referrals are placed on the ballot by the state Legislature without the input of the governor.

But citizens can also place measures on the ballot by gathering signatures on petitions. That signature-gathering process is what Proposition 134 would amend.

Voter education

Questions appear on the printed ballot with short descriptions of the effects of a yes or no vote. The Secretary of State’s Office also publishes a publicity pamphlet, which contains an analysis of each measure as approved by the state Legislature’s Legislative Council, as well as arguments submitted by members of the public in support of and against each measure.

The business community view

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry submitted an argument supporting passage of Proposition 134.

“Currently, there are no requirements for initiative backers to gather signatures from across the state, so petition circulators can concentrate their efforts in densely populated urban areas like Phoenix and Tucson with no need to pitch their ideas to voters in more rural and exurban areas. Prop. 134 will make Arizona’s initiative process fairer and more equitable by ensuring that signatures be gathered proportionally across each legislative district,” the Chamber says.

Chamber Vice President of Government Affairs Courtney Coolidge says the reform proposed by Proposition 134 is consistent with the system adopted by other states with a citizen initiative process. “About half the states that have a citizen initiative process have a geographic distribution requirement,” Coolidge said. “It makes sense. After all, if we’re going to be making new laws at the ballot box, we should at least attempt to have them vetted by a representative cross-section of the electorate, including urban and rural. Under the current system, initiative backers have no incentive to test their ideas statewide, which brings into question whether the current system is truly representative.”

The post Arizona voters to decide whether initiative petition signatures should be gathered statewide appeared first on 91ֱ��.

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 Chamber of Commerce & Industry and the Greater Phoenix Chamber 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 Chamber 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 Chamber, agreed, saying that the passage of the initiative will have detrimental consequences for the people of Arizona.

“The Chamber 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 91ֱ��.

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 Chamber of Commerce & Industry v. Kiley, a case involving a ballot initiative that increased the state’s minimum wage and implemented mandatory sick leave. The Chamber 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 91ֱ��.

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 91ֱ��.