Proposition 105—Majority Rule

This would apply to all future Propositions that are put on the ballot by the voters rather than the legislature, and it would require that all such initiatives which raise taxes in any way must be enacted by a majority of all registered voters rather than just a majority of all votes cast. In other words, any Proposition in a normal 60% turnout election that will cost money will have to get 85% of the votes cast in order to pass. This would have meant that many past initiatives would have failed, but it also tends to mirror the 1992 requirement that all tax increases in the legislature be passed by a 2/3 super-majority.

Overview:
~15% support. I recommend a NO vote.
~In practice, this would eliminate all future ballot-initiative propositions because they all require funding of some sort for the simple reason that the numbers will never be there to pass with enough votes to overcome the non-votes.
~There are serious philosophical problems here. The major one is that it treats non-votes as No votes. But no one can know whether a non-vote would have been a Yes or a No for the simple obvious reason is that the person didn't cast it. In fact, since we have declined to mandate 100% voting by law, one could very easily argue that a non-vote is itself the expressed will of a person and to count it yea or nay is to violate the right of the person to not cast a vote at all. To point out the serious error here, imagine if the initiative were reversed to read, "All ballot initiatives that increase spending will pass unless they are opposed by a majority of all eligible voters." In other words, count all non-votes as Yeses instead of counting them as Nos the way this plan would. That would be so beyond absurd that it shows the essential flaw here.
~The pool of eligible voters is itself already inflated and inaccurate due to the presence of lingering registrations for people who have left the state or died and also fraudulent or ineligible registrations. The reason we are more eager to put people on the list rather than to pull them off is so that we run less risk of turning people away at the precinct. This is good. But it means the rolls are already inflated from inaccuracy, and requiring a majority of 110% of all voters means actually requiring 55% rather than 50%+1.
~This plan is self-refuting. If it had already been in place, it would certainly have made its own passage impossible. How can a mere majority of actual voters implement a Proposition that all future Propositions will require a majority of all possible votes for passage? If they had been consistent, they would have applied their own test to the passage of this Proposition.
~This is a forest fire solution to a problem that would best be served by some tree-trimming. Given that the Legislature requires a 2/3 supermajority to raise taxes, it would have been perfectly consistent to raise the standard to a 2/3 supermarjority for passing Propositions. Given my sense that Props should be opposed unless more than 75% certain to be useful, I could eagerly have supported this. But an even more nuanced solution would be to require a supermajority in cases where the increase in taxation is above some threshhold (perhaps one referenced to a percentage of the AZ GDP), and that ones which incur only minimal adminstrative costs (below that threshhold) could pass with simple majorities. That would both be proper and accommodate all the objections being raised by the opponents.

For
~Who is for it: Liquor and tobacco industry and lobbyists, private citizens. Americans for prosperity. Arizona farm bureau, Arizona free enterprise club.
~Because of voter-approved spending measures, the legislature and governor are not allowed to cut spending on those projects, even if they can’t meet obligations for other far more vital issues.
~We have the largest proportional budget deficit of any state, and it suffers from previous ballot initiatives.
~This raises the threshold for future Proposition based spending initiatives.
~Would make it harder for special interests to raise taxes through proposition initiatives.
~Currently, low voter turnout elections can still impose significant burdens on everyone even though only a real minority has voted for it.
~You shouldn’t have to show up to say, “No,” to new taxes.
~The fact that advocates of an initiative can’t get enough people out to the polls to vote for it means it shouldn’t be enacted anyhow.
~It could really cut down on "frivolous" propositions.
~It would force government to lower spending rather than raising taxes to balance the budget.
~It’s more difficult in the legislature, why not make it more difficult at the ballot box, too?
~High turnout elections would only wind up requiring 2/3 of actual voters to pass, which is practically the same as the super majority in the legislature.
~You can still go through the legislature if you’re worried about this.
~How else will you put the power back in the hands of the legislature to remedy budget problems created by unassailable and inflexible spending from previous Propositions?

Against
~Who’s against it: Um, like everybody. This thing should get clobbered at the polls. AZ education assn, AZ school boards, AZ hospital and healthcare assn, Church women united, League of women voters, Westmarc, Animal defense league, Arizona conference of police and sheriff, Greater Phoenix Chamber of commerce, AARP, Humane society, Valley interfaith, Arizona interfaith, AZ NOW, AFL-CIO, American Cancer society, Planned Parenthood, American Lung Association, Virtually every chapter of Fire Fighters and Police, East Valley Chamber of Commerce Alliance
~In practice, this would mean that no Propositions that increased taxes would ever pass. You’re never going to get 75% on anything.
~Gives too much apathy inertia to the people who don’t care enough to bother voting.
~People who stay home thereby forfeit their right to be heard. Imagine the absurdity of saying that a proposition needs a majority of all registered voters to support it to pass, and anyone who does not vote will be counted as a Yes vote!
~The people who don’t vote choose by not voting to not be heard. You can’t blame the rest of the electorate for their apathy. If you don’t want a measure, vote against it by showing up to vote.
In fact, it gives veto or filibuster power to a minority of actual voters by giving them the benefit of all the “present” votes.
~1998 45.8% voted. No proposition could pass.
~2006 64% voted. 82% to win. In other words only a 18% minority of actual voters could stop any Proposition.
~Even initiatives that incur small spending increases would be thwarted by this.
~What about people who are registered but illegitimate, moved, deceased, etc? it seems like the number need to pass would actually be more like 55% or 60% of the real registered voter base just because of such problems.
~Programs that wouldn’t exist: Clean elections, Smoke-free AZ, Heritage fund for public parks, Independent redistricting commission, Classroom funding—the $0.006 sales tax that has funded $2 million to schools, Early childhood development funding $0.80 tax on cigarettes 57% passed, would have failed, Tobacco lawsuit tax for healthcare, AZ Indian gaming initiative—funds emergency rooms and trauma centers, Humane treatment of animals, English as the official language. 74% passed, would have failed, Eminent domain protection. 65% passed, would have failed, Healthy Arizona, health insurance for working poor, No initiative passed since 1974 would exist if this had been the law.
~Since it would really reduce propositions, it would also really reduce amending prior propositions. Anyone who squeaked in under the wire would be very safe. If this passed by 51%, it would take 83% to undo it in the very next election.
~Liquor industry wants to preempt sin taxes by the people. They can control the legislature more effectively.
~We already require that any initiative identify specifically how it will be funded.

Links:
Proposition 105 - Majority Rules by PBS 8
Prop 105 by AZCentral.com
No on Prop 105 by TheVotersofAZ.com
I couldn't find a decent Yes site. Email me if you know of one.