Ballot Propositions

1998 BALLOT PROPOSITIONS

GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 3, 1998

PUBLISHED BY BETSEY BAYLESS ARIZONA SECRETARY OF STATE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

This Publication Available in Alternate Formats The 1998 Publicity Pamphlet is available in alternate formats. Arizona residents who need information about the 1998 ballot propositions in another format should contact the Election Services Division of the Secretary of State’s Office at 602-542- 8683, 1-877-THE-VOTE (1-877-843-8683), 800-458-5842, or TDD 602-255-8683.

Voter Registration Assistance Arizona residents who need assistance with registering to vote should contact the appropriate county recorder at the number listed on the inside back cover.

Arizona residents may register to vote by mail. Forms are available at government offices and public locations throughout the state. Forms may be requested from the county recorder or by calling 1-877-THE-VOTE (1-877-843-8683), TDD 602-255- 8683, or the Secretary of State’s Web site at www.sosaz.com.

Accessibility for Voters County election officials will accommodate special needs of voters who are physically unable to go to the polls or who need special access or special voting aids at polling places. Arizona residents who need assistance with voting should contact the appropriate county election department at the number listed on the inside back cover.

✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩

The Secretary of State’s Office is an equal opportunity employer.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Proposition # Page # 100 An amendment to the Arizona Constitution referred by the Legislature adding rules relating to public retirement systems ...... 6 Ballot format...... 12 101 An amendment to the Arizona Constitution referred by the Legislature relating to commission on salaries for elected state officers ...... 13 Ballot format...... 17 102 An amendment to the Arizona Constitution referred by the Legislature relating to investment of State Trust funds ...... 18 Ballot format...... 25 103 An amendment to the Arizona Constitution referred by the Legislature relating to voting in Primary Elections ...... 26 Ballot format...... 32 104 An amendment to the Arizona Constitution referred by the Legislature relating to initiative and referendum ...... 33 Ballot format...... 42 105 Proposing an amendment to the Arizona Constitution by Initiative Petition relating to initiative and referendum ...... 43 Ballot format...... 51 106 Proposing an amendment to the Arizona Constitution by Initiative Petition relating to voting in Primary Elections ...... 52 Ballot format...... 59 200 Proposing an Act by Initiative Petition relating to a campaign finance funding and reporting system ...... 60 Ballot format...... 92 201 Proposing an Act by Initiative Petition relating to creating the crime of cockfighting ...... 93 Ballot format...... 113 202 Proposing an Act by Initiative Petition relating to creating a federal candidates’ IRS pledge ...... 114 Ballot format...... 121 300 Referendum ordered by Petition of the People relating to the medical use of Schedule I drugs...... 122 Ballot format...... 145

3 301 Referendum ordered by Petition of the People relating to probation eligibility for drug possession or use ...... 146 Ballot format...... 158 302 Recommendation by the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers relating to salaries for State Legislators...... 159 Ballot format...... 162 303 An Act referred by the Legislature relating to appropriation of funds for open space land...... 163 Ballot format...... 176 304 An Act referred by the Legislature relating to the State Lottery termination date ...... 177 Ballot format...... 190

Closing ...... 191 Voters Guide ...... 200

4 NOTICE

In this pamphlet, proposed additions to Arizona’s Constitution or laws are shown in CAPITAL LETTERS.

Proposed deletions to Arizona’s Constitution or laws are shown by strikeouts.

At the time this pamphlet was printed, the verification of initiative petition signatures by the county recorders was not yet complete. It is possible that not all five of the propositions proposed by initiative petition will be on the General Election ballot on November 3, 1998.

For information about which propositions will be on the November ballot, visit the Secretary of State Web site, www.sosaz.com, or call 1-877- THE VOTE (1-877-843- 8683). Those measures that achieve ballot status will be listed on the Web site upon completion of the verification process.

VOTE ON NOVEMBER 3, 1998

5                       .      .                                                           . .

  .  . . .  

   ..   . .  ...

.   

 .. . .   . . . . .. . .. .   . . .    . .. . ..        . .   . .... . . .          .     

.     . . ...   .             .. ..  . .. ... .  .                    .. . . . ... . .                .. .  .    . 

.   

.       . . .         . . ..   ...  .  .   .. ... . .   .     ..  . .. .   ..  . ..    ..

.   

     .   .       .     .. .  .. .   . ...   ..                           . ..        .        .  .  .   .  ..   .       .

.      . . . . . ... . .       .        .  .  .  .        .   .    . ...  . ..         .

.                                             



.   .  .  

.   Proposition 101 PROPOSITION 101 OFFICIAL TITLE HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2008 PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE V, SECTION 12, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; RELATING TO SALARIES FOR ELECTED STATE OFFICERS. TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring: 1. Article V, section 12, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor: 12. Compensation of elective state officers; Arizona citizens commission on salaries for elective state officers Section 12. A. The salaries of those holding elective state offices shall be as established by law from time to time, subject to the limitations of article 6, section 33 and to the limitations of article 4, part 2, section 17. Such salaries as are presently established may be altered from time to time by the procedure established in this section or as otherwise provided by law , except that legislative salaries may be altered only by the procedures established in this section. B. A commission to be known as the ARIZONA CITIZENS commission on salaries for elective state officers is authorized to be established by the legislature. NO ELECTIVE STATE OFFICER, PERSON REQUIRED BY LAW TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST OR IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER OF AN ELECTIVE STATE OFFICER OR LOBBYIST MAY SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION. The commission shall be composed of: 1. five SIX members OF THE PUBLIC appointed from private life , two of whom shall be appointed by the governor and one each by the president of the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives, and the chief justice SECRE- TARY OF STATE EACH OF WHOM SHALL BE A RESIDENT OF A DIF- FERENT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IN ARIZONA . 2. FIVE MEMBERS APPOINTED JOINTLY BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESEN- TATIVES. EACH OF THE MEMBERS APPOINTED PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD OF PER- SONNEL MANAGEMENT AND EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE REPRESENTED: (a) INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING. (b) BUSINESS. (c) PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT. (d) LAW. (e) EMPLOYEES WHO DO NOT CURRENTLY WORK IN A MAN- AGEMENT POSITION. C. At such times as may be directed by the legislature BEGINNING IN 1999, the commission shall report BIENNIALLY to the governor, PRESIDENT

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 13 Proposition 101

OF THE SENATE AND SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA- TIVES BY DECEMBER 15 with recommendations concerning the rates of pay of elected state officers. The governor shall upon the receipt of such report make recommendations to the legislature with respect to the exact rates of pay which he deems advisable for those offices and positions other than for the rates of pay of members of the legislature. Such recommendations shall become effective at a time established by the legislature after the transmission of the recommendation of the governor SEPTEMBER 1, BEGINNING IN 2000, without aid of further legislative action unless , within such period of time, there has been enacted into law a statute which establishes rates of pay other than those proposed by the governor, or unless either house of the legislature specifically disapproves all or part of the governor’s recommendation REFERRED TO THE BALLOT BY THE LEGISLATURE OR BY REFERENDUM PETITION OF THE PEOPLE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV, PART 1, SECTION 1 OF THE CONSTITU- TION OF ARIZONA. FOR PURPOSES OF A REFERENDUM PETITION BY THE PEOPLE, THE NINETY DAY PERIOD FOR THE REFERENDUM PETITION SHALL BEGIN ON THE CLOSE OF THE REGULAR LEGISLA- TIVE SESSION IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF THE COMMISSION’S REPORT. The recommendations of the governor, unless disapproved or altered within the time provided by law, shall be effective; and any 1971 recommendations shall be effective as to all offices on the first Monday in January of 1973. In case of either a legislative enactment or disapproval by either house, the recommendations shall be effective only insofar as not altered or disapproved. The recommendations of the commission as to legislative salaries shall be certified by it to the secretary of state and the secretary of state shall submit to the qualified electors at the next regular general election the question, "Shall the recommendations of the commission on salaries for elective state officers concerning legislative salaries be accepted? [ ] Yes [ ] No." Such recommendations if approved by the electors shall become effective at the beginning of the next regular legislative session without any other authorizing legislation. All recommendations which become effective under this section shall supersede all laws enacted prior to their effective date relating to such salaries. 2. The legislative council staff shall prepare proposed legislation conforming the Arizona Revised Statutes to the provisions of this measure for consideration in the forty-fourth legislature, first regular session. 3. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article XXI, Constitution of Arizona. FINAL VOTE CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON HCR 2008 House - Ayes, 52 Senate - Ayes, 17 Nays, 7 Nays, 9 Not Voting, 1 Not Voting, 4

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 14 Proposition 101 ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (In Compliance With A.R.S. Section 19-124) Proposition 101 would amend the Arizona Constitution relating to salaries for elected state officers. Elected state officers are the Governor, the Secretary of State, the State Treasurer, the Attorney General, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, members of the Corporation Commission, members of the Legislature, the Mine Inspector, jus- tices of the Arizona Supreme Court, judges of the Arizona Court of Appeals and judges of the Superior Court. Under current law, the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers issues its recommendations to the Governor. The Governor then transmits those recommendations, with any changes, to the Legislature. The Legislature can amend those recommendations, or if the Legislature takes no action, the Governor’s recommendations go into effect. This process applies to all elected state offices, except for members of the Legislature. Under current law, any change in the salary of members of the Legisla- ture is submitted to a vote of the people. Proposition 101 would rename the Commission as the Arizona Citizens Commis- sion on Salaries for Elective State Officers. The Commission’s membership would be increased from 5 to 11 members. Six of those members would be appointed by the Secretary of State, and the remaining five members would be appointed jointly by the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and the President of the Arizona State Senate. Proposition 101 would require the Arizona Citizens Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers to report every two years to the Governor and the Legislature with recommendations for salaries for elected state officers, beginning in 1999. Those recommendations would go into effect unless either the Legislature or the people refer the recommendations to the ballot for a vote of the people. ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 101 Vote YES on Proposition 101 Arizona’s elected officials and judges are servants of the people. The people should decide their compensation. Proposition 101 would give an independent citizens’ commission the power to set salaries without interference from powerful lobbyists or special political interest groups. The majority of commission members would be people like you, each representing a different congressional district in the state. Other commission members would have experience in personnel and various professions. State officials, lobbyists or their families would no longer be allowed to serve on the commission. The people would have the final say. After the independent commission makes a decision, the people would have the power to change it by filing a referendum. The salaries of elected officials should be based on realistic objective standards and not on political considerations or those of special interests. Under current law, members of the Legislature may specifically disapprove all or any part of the commission’s recommendations. The current process allows for personalities, politics, and

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 15 Proposition 101 powerful lobbyists to play a role. With the passage of Proposition 101, the independent citizens’ commission would set salary levels according to the needs of the state. By voting YES on Proposition 101, the potential for the Legislature to act out of self interest would be forever removed. Rose Mofford Former Governor, State of Arizona Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 101 The Secretary of State did not receive arguments against Proposition 101.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 16 Proposition 101 BALLOT FORMAT PROPOSITION 101 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY THE LEGISLATURE OFFICIAL TITLE HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2008 PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE V, SECTION 12, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; RELATING TO SALARIES FOR ELECTED STATE OFFICERS. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE AMENDING ARIZONA CONSTITUTION TO INCREASE SALARY COM- MISSION MEMBERSHIP FROM 5 TO 11 MEMBERS; COMMISSION REC- OMMENDS SALARIES FOR ELECTIVE STATE OFFICERS EVERY 2 YEARS, BEGINNING 1999; COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS BECOME FINAL, INCLUDING LEGISLATORS’ SALARY RECOMMEN- DATION, UNLESS LEGISLATURE OR THE PEOPLE PLACE REFEREN- DUM ON SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT. PROPOSITION 101

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of increasing the number of members on the commission on salaries for elective state offic- YES ers and providing that the commission’s recommendations become final, including Legislators’ salaries, unless the Legisla- ture or the People place a referendum on the salary recommendations on the General Election ballot. A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current method for determining salaries for elected state officers. NO

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 17 Proposition 102 PROPOSITION 102 OFFICIAL TITLE SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1007 REQUESTING THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO RETURN SENATE CONCUR- RENT RESOLUTION 1018, FORTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, FIRST REGULAR SESSION, TO THE LEGISLATURE AND SUBMIT THE PROPOSITION CON- TAINED IN SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 5 OF THIS RESOLUTION OF THE PRO- POSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE IX, SECTION 7, ARTICLE X, SECTION 7 AND ARTICLE XI, SECTION 8, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, TO THE VOTERS; RELATING TO INVESTMENT OF STATE MONIES. TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT Whereas, pursuant to Article XXI, Constitution of Arizona, the Forty-third Leg- islature, First Regular Session, presented Senate Concurrent Resolution 1018 to the Secretary of State for submission of an amendment of Article X, section 7, Constitu- tion of Arizona, to the voters at the next general election; and Whereas, no general election having occurred, the proposition has not yet been presented to the voters; and Whereas, on further consideration, the Legislature has determined that the subject of the proposed constitutional amendment, the investment of monies in the state land trust funds, should be addressed in another manner. Therefore Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of Arizona, the House of Representatives concurring: 1. The Legislature of the State of Arizona respectfully requests pursuant to section 41-121, paragraph 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, that the Secretary of State return Senate Concurrent Resolution 1018, Forty-third Legislature, First Regular Ses- sion, to the Legislature. 2. The Secretary of State shall submit the proposition contained in sections 3, 4 and 5 of this Resolution to the voters at the next general election as provided by Article XXI, Constitution of Arizona, in lieu of Senate Concurrent Resolution 1018. 3. Article IX, section 7, Constitution of Arizona is proposed to be amended as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor: 7. Gift or loan of credit; subsidies; stock ownership; joint ownership Section 7. Neither the state, nor any county, city, town, municipality, or other subdivision of the state shall ever give or loan its credit in the aid of, or make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation, or become a subscriber to, or a shareholder in, any company or corporation, or become a joint owner with any person, company, or corporation, except as to such ownerships as may accrue to the state by operation or provision of law OR AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW SOLELY FOR INVEST- MENT OF THE MONIES IN THE VARIOUS FUNDS OF THE STATE. 4. Article X, section 7, Constitution of Arizona is proposed to be amended as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 18 Proposition 102

7. Establishment of permanent funds; segregation, investment and distribution of monies Section 7. A. A separate PERMANENT fund shall be established for each of the several objects for which the said grants are made and confirmed by the said enabling act to the state, and whenever any moneys MONIES shall be in any manner derived from any of said lands, the same shall be deposited by the state treasurer in the PERMANENT fund corresponding to the grant under which the particular land producing such moneys MONIES was, by said THE enabling act, conveyed or confirmed. B. No moneys MONIES shall ever be taken from one PERMANENT fund for deposit in any other, or for any object other than that for which the land producing the same was granted or confirmed. The state treasurer shall keep all such moneys invested in safe, interest-bearing securities, which securities shall be approved by the governor and secretary of state, and shall at all times be under a good and sufficient bond or bonds conditioned for the faithful performance of his duties in regard thereto. C. ALL SUCH MONIES SHALL BE INVESTED IN SAFE INTER- EST-BEARING SECURITIES AND PRUDENT EQUITY SECURITIES CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION. D. THE LEGISLATURE SHALL ESTABLISH A BOARD OF INVESTMENT TO SERVE AS TRUSTEES OF THE PERMANENT FUNDS. THE BOARD SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSETS OF THE FUNDS CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDI- TIONS: 1. NOT MORE THAN SIXTY PER CENT OF A FUND AT COST MAY BE INVESTED IN EQUITIES AT ANY TIME. 2. EQUITIES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR PURCHASE ARE RESTRICTED TO STOCKS LISTED ON ANY NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OR ELIGIBLE FOR TRADING THROUGH THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS AUTO- MATED QUOTATION SYSTEM, OR SUCCESSOR INSTITUTIONS, EXCEPT AS MAY BE PROHIBITED BY GENERAL CRITERIA OR BY A RESTRICTION ON INVESTMENT IN A SPECIFIC SECURITY ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION. 3. NOT MORE THAN FIVE PER CENT OF ALL OF THE FUNDS COMBINED AT COST MAY BE INVESTED IN EQUITY SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE SAME INSTITUTION, AGENCY OR CORPORATION, OTHER THAN SECURITIES ISSUED AS DIRECT OBLIGATIONS OF AND FULLY GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. E. IN MAKING INVESTMENTS UNDER THIS SECTION THE STATE TREASURER AND TRUSTEES SHALL EXERCISE THE JUDG- MENT AND CARE UNDER THE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AN INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE, DISCRE- TION AND INTELLIGENCE EXERCISES IN MANAGING LARGE INVESTMENTS ENTRUSTED TO IT, NOT IN REGARD TO SPECULA- TION, BUT IN REGARD TO THE PERMANENT DISPOSITION OF MON- IES, CONSIDERING THE PROBABLE SAFETY OF CAPITAL AS WELL

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 19 Proposition 102

AS THE PROBABLE TOTAL RATE OF RETURN OVER EXTENDED PERI- ODS OF TIME. F. THE EARNINGS, INTEREST, DIVIDENDS AND REALIZED CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES FROM INVESTMENT OF A PERMA- NENT FUND, SHALL BE CREDITED TO THAT FUND. G. THE BOARD OF INVESTMENT SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE ANNUAL DISTRIBUTIONS REQUIRED BY THIS SEC- TION AND ALLOCATE DISTRIBUTIONS PURSUANT TO LAW. BEGIN- NING JULY 1, 2000 AND EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, THE AMOUNT OF THE ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION FROM A PERMANENT FUND ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IS THE AMOUNT DETERMINED BY MULTIPLYING THE FOLLOWING FACTORS: 1. THE AVERAGE OF THE ANNUAL TOTAL RATE OF RETURN FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING FIVE COMPLETE FISCAL YEARS LESS THE AVERAGE OF THE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN THE GDP PRICE DEFLATOR, OR A SUCCESSOR INDEX, FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING FIVE COMPLETE FISCAL YEARS. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH: (a) “ANNUAL TOTAL RATE OF RETURN” MEANS THE QUO- TIENT OBTAINED BY DIVIDING THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO A FUND PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION F FOR A COMPLETE FISCAL YEAR, PLUS UNREALIZED CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES, BY THE AVERAGE MONTHLY MARKET VALUE OF THE FUND FOR THAT YEAR. (b) “GDP PRICE DEFLATOR” MEANS THE GROSS DOMESTIC PRICE DEFLATOR REPORTED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, OR ITS SUCCES- SOR AGENCY. 2. THE AVERAGE OF THE MONTHLY MARKET VALUES OF THE FUND FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING FIVE COMPLETE FISCAL YEARS. H. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS SEC- TION, THE ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION FROM THE PERMANENT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1999-2000 THROUGH 2002-2003 SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000, THE GREATER OF FIVE PER CENT OF THE AVERAGE OF THE MONTHLY MARKET VALUES OF THE FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1994-1995 THROUGH 1998-1999 OR THE AVERAGE OF ACTUAL ANNUAL DISTRIBUTIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1994-1995 THROUGH 1998-1999. 2. FOR FISCAL YEARS 2000-2001 THROUGH 2002-2003, THE GREATER OF THE AVERAGE OF THE ACTUAL ANNUAL DISTRIBU- TIONS FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING FIVE COMPLETE FISCAL YEARS OR THE AMOUNT OF THE DISTRIBUTION REQUIRED BY SUB- SECTION G. 5. Article XI, section 8, Constitution of Arizona is proposed to be amended as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor: 8. Permanent state school fund; source; apportionment of state funds

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 20 Proposition 102

Section 8. A. A permanent state school fund for the use of the common schools shall be derived from the sale of public school lands or other public lands specified in the enabling act approved June 20, 1910; from all estates or distributive shares of estates that may escheat to the state; from all unclaimed shares and dividends of any corporation incorporated under the laws of Arizona; and from all gifts, devises, or bequests made to the state for general educational purposes. B. The income derived from the investment of the permanent state school fund, and from the rental derived from school lands, with such other funds as may be provided by law shall be apportioned only for common and high school education in Arizona, and in such manner as may be prescribed by law. FINAL VOTE CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON SCR 1009 House - Ayes, 36 Senate - Ayes, 16 Nays, 18 Nays, 14 Not Voting, 6 Not Voting, 0

Senate concurs in House Amendments and Final Passage Ayes, 22 Nays, 7 Not Voting, 1

ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (In Compliance With A.R.S. Section 19-124) In 1910, the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act, allowing Arizona to become a state. The Enabling Act granted the new state millions of acres of land to be held in trust to support various public institutions (schools, col- leges, prisons, etc.). If the "trust" lands are rented, the rent income is paid out as provided by law. If trust land is sold, the proceeds of the sale are placed in a permanent trust fund. The permanent fund can be invested only in "interest-bearing securities", such as bonds and bank accounts, and the interest from the investments is used to support the appropriate institution. Proposition 102 would amend several sections of the Arizona Constitution to expand the investment options for money in trust funds of the state and allow them to be invested in equity securities, such as stocks, as well as interest-bearing securities. The permanent trust funds would be managed by a Board of Investment under the following conditions: 1. Not more than 60% of a permanent fund could ever be invested in equities. 2. Only stocks that are listed on any national stock exchange or that are eligible for trading through the United States National Association of Securities Dealers Auto- mated Quotation System could be purchased. 3. Not more than 5% of all of the permanent funds combined could be invested in equities issued by the same entity unless issued and guaranteed by the United States government.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 21 Proposition 102

The State Treasurer and Board of Investment would not be allowed to make specula- tive investments but would be required to use the standard of investment known as "the prudent investor rule". The Board of Investment would pay money out of the permanent funds to the designated state institutions in an amount limited to a percentage of each fund’s five-year average market value. In order for this proposal to become fully operative, the United States Congress will also have to amend the state Enabling Act to allow all earnings, including capital gains and dividends as well as interest, to be distributed from the permanent funds to the trust beneficiaries. ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 102 Since the depths of the Great Depression in 1932, despite four major wars, ongoing civil strife and extended inflationary and recessionary periods, the Dow Jones Indus- trial Average has increased by 220 times. In contrast, returns on fixed income investments have been less than half that amount. The message is clear for this period and over the course of our history in general--returns on stocks have in fact exceeded returns on bonds. While there is no guarantee, we can say with near certainty that over any future period of extended duration, stocks will outperform bonds. The Enabling Act granted statehood to Arizona in 1912. At the same time, it granted the state land trust for operation of our schools, but restricted trust investments to fixed income securities. It was not until 1958 that the Enabling Act was amended to authorize equity investments for the trust. New Mexico, by taking advantage of equity authority since 1988 has reaped an average annual return of 13-14%. Due in part to those returns, its land trust stands as the third largest endowment fund in the nation, second only to Harvard University and the Texas State Land Trust. Unfortu- nately, Arizona has not moved to profit from equity investing. This is something which is long overdue. This is your chance to put the Arizona State Land Trust on track for a rational and systematic investment policy overseen by the State Board of Investment and imple- mented by professional equity managers to maximize returns while minimizing risk to the taxpayers of Arizona. Seize this opportunity. It will not be available to you again anytime soon. Tony West, Chairman, Board of Elliott Hibbs, Board of Investment Investment Arizona State Treasurer Arizona Department of Phoenix Administration Phoenix Alan E. Maguire, Board of Investment Marsha Bonham, Board of President Investment The Maguire Company Treasurer Phoenix Cochise County Bisbee Paid for by William A. West, Jr.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 22 Proposition 102 ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 102 Recent historical total returns in excess of 10% on stocks (equities) have consistently exceeded returns of 6-7% on bonds (fixed-income investments), yet the Arizona Constitution restricts the State Land Trust to fixed-income investments. The Joint Legislative Budget Committee calculates that a mix of 65% equities and 35% high quality bonds from 1980-1996 would have earned an additional $320.9 million for our schools. Congress granted New Mexico equity authority by amendment of the Enabling Act in 1957. Indicative of the returns which equities can bring to Arizona’s Land Trust is New Mexico’s average annual return of 13-14% since 1988. Returns of that magni- tude will essentially double earnings for trusts which are restricted to fixed-income investments. Recognizing this potential, Arizona seeks to join a trend among the states to authorize equity investments for their trusts. Recently West Virginia joined South Carolina and Indiana which previously overturned bans on equity investing. This proposition will strike down an anachronistic mandate which was created to address a very different economic and regulatory environment. Today it only offers false assurances. Until that mandate is changed, Arizona will have to settle for less- than-optimum investment returns for our school children. If voters approve this proposition, the Board of Investment will oversee professional money managers who will manage investments on a total rate of return basis to improve the quality of education for our children and insure the long term viability of the trust. A “yes” vote and ultimate endorsement by the Congress of the United States will help future generations of Arizona’s children without imposing additional burdens on today’s taxpayers. This is a rare, real and substantial opportunity which the voter and taxpayer should exercise in their own interests and those of the children of Arizona. Tony West Arizona State Treasurer Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 102 I urge you to vote “yes” for Proposition 102. A vote for Proposition 102 is a vote to increase the monies available for public education at no cost to the taxpayer. Can you imagine if you were limited to investing your retirement monies or your savings in just interest-bearing accounts? What if you could have earned only 7 - 8% per year on average over the past two decades, and not the 13 - 14% you have come to enjoy through investing in mutual funds that can place a portion of their investments in the stock market? This is what has happened with the investment of monies in our permanent land trust funds. These are monies derived from the sale of State Trust Lands that were given to Arizona by the federal government when Arizona became a state 86 years ago. Over 90% of trust lands are held in trust for the benefit of our elementary and second- ary public education system. If, over the past two decades, the permanent land trust funds had been invested in the same manner as the Arizona State Retirement System invests its funds, the permanent land trust funds -- valued at nearly $900 million -- would be worth roughly $500 million more.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 23 Proposition 102

We safely can earn a far greater rate of return on these investments, while simulta- neously protecting these assets for future generations of Arizonans. In fact, under Proposition 102, the higher earnings will be used in part to provide inflation-protection for the principle portion of the trust funds. Please vote “yes” on Proposition 102. Your children and grandchildren will be glad you did. Jane Dee Hull Governor Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 102 The Secretary of State did not receive arguments against Proposition 102.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 24 Proposition 102 BALLOT FORMAT PROPOSITION 102 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY THE LEGISLATURE OFFICIAL TITLE SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1007 REQUESTING THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO RETURN SENATE CON- CURRENT RESOLUTION 1018, FORTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, FIRST REGULAR SESSION, TO THE LEGISLATURE AND SUBMIT THE PROPO- SITION CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 5 OF THIS RESOLUTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE IX, SECTION 7, ARTICLE X, SECTION 7 AND ARTICLE XI, SECTION 8, CONSTITUTION OF ARI- ZONA, TO THE VOTERS; RELATING TO INVESTMENT OF STATE MON- IES. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE AMENDING ARIZONA CONSTITUTION TO EXPAND INVESTMENT OPTIONS FOR STATE TRUST FUNDS, ALLOWING INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SECURITIES, SUCH AS STOCKS. BOARD OF INVESTMENTS WOULD MANAGE FUNDS UNDER CONDITIONS SET OUT IN CONSTI- TUTION; REQUIRING INVESTMENT ACCORDING TO “THE PRUDENT INVESTOR RULE”; PERMITTING CERTAIN PAYMENTS OUT OF PERMA- NENT FUNDS TO DESIGNATED STATE INSTITUTIONS. PROPOSITION 102

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Con- stitution to expand investment options for State Trust funds, YES allowing investment in equity securities, requiring investment according to “the prudent investor rule,” and permitting payments from the permanent funds to designated state institutions. A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current investment options for State Trust funds. NO

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 25 Proposition 103 PROPOSITION 103 OFFICIAL TITLE SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1014 PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE VII, SECTION 10, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; RELATING TO PRIMARY ELECTION LAW. TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of Arizona, the House of Representatives concurring: 1. Article VII, section 10, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the governor: 10. Direct primary election law Section 10. The Legislature shall enact a direct primary election law, which shall provide for the nomination of candidates for all elective State, county, and city offices, including candidates for United States Senator and for Representative in Congress. ANY PERSON WHO IS REGISTERED AS NO PARTY PREFERENCE OR INDEPENDENT AS THE PARTY PREFERENCE OR WHO IS REGISTERED WITH A POLITICAL PARTY THAT IS NOT QUALIFIED FOR REPRESENTATION ON THE BALLOT MAY VOTE IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION OF ANY ONE OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES THAT IS QUALIFIED FOR THE BALLOT. 2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article XXI, Constitution of Arizona.

FINAL VOTE CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON SCR 1014 House - Ayes, 38 Senate - Ayes, 16 Nays, 14 Nays, 14 Not Voting, 8 Not Voting, 0 Senate Concurs in House Amendments and Final Passage Ayes, 22 Nays, 7 Not Voting, 1

ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (In Compliance With A.R.S. Section 19-124) Proposition 103 would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow any registered voter in the state to vote in a partisan primary election. This proposition would allow a person who is registered as an independent or with no party preference or a person who is registered as a member of a political party that is not qualified to appear on the ballot (sometimes called a “minor party”) to vote, as chosen by the person, in the primary election of one of the four major political par-

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 26 Proposition 103 ties. Under current law, only voters who are registered members of one of the four major political parties (Democrat, Libertarian, Reform or Republican) are eligible to vote in the party’s primary election. Voters registered in a major political party would be allowed to vote only in their own party's primary election. ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 103 I urge you to vote “yes” on Proposition 103. In Arizona, almost 14% of our registered voters have chosen to register listing no party preference, as “independent,” or as members of small political parties which are not recognized in this state. Under current state law, none of these registered voters are able to vote in primary elections because only members of “recognized” parties -- in 1998, they are the Democrats, Libertarians, Reform, and Republican -- are allowed to vote in the parties’ primary elections. If you vote “yes” on Proposition 103, these voters -- 306,994 as of March 1, 1998 -- will be given a voice in the primary elections. Independent and small party voters pay for the primary elections through their tax dollars. They should be permitted to participate in the decisions that are made during those elections. Vote “yes” on Proposition 103. Jane Dee Hull Governor Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 103 Proposition 103, Direct Primary Elections, would allow any person who is registered as an independent or with no party preference or is registered to a party that is not represented on the ballot to vote in the primary election of the major political parties. The process would allow the voter to select the party’s ballot for which he wishes to vote, however, if registered with a major political party, a person would have to vote that party’s ballot. Proposition 103 would open up the political process to more persons and at the same time not incur the great increase in expense to the taxpayer and candidates that Prop- osition 106, the Wealthy Politician Act, would create. This proposition would still allow political parties to elect their own nominee for the general election. It will provide any voter the opportunity to express their views in a primary election. It is fair, less costly than Proposition 106 and just more sensible. Mike Hellon Chairman Arizona Republican Party Phoenix

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 27 Proposition 103 ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 103 Proposition 103 is a fair and reasonable measure allowing greater participation in the election process. Proposition 103 will allow registered Independents and other minor parties to participate in primaries in a meaningful way, because it allows them to choose the primary in which they want to vote. For example, a registered Indepen- dent could go to the polls on primary election day and request a ballot for the Demo- cratic primary. This would enable the Independent to cast a meaningful vote without destroying the integrity of the nominating process. Contrast that to the wrongheaded notions in Proposition 106 which would allow any- body to vote in either primary, regardless of their registration. Democrats voting as Republicans and Republicans voting as Democrats is a perversion of the process and could lead to abuses where members of one party try to unfairly influence the nomination of the other party’s candidate. Proposition 103 recognizes that registered Independents are intelligent voters who sometimes lean toward Republican values and other times lean toward Democratic ideas. That type of voter is a welcome addition to either party and their participation will help strengthen the system. In addition, Proposition 103 will have very little impact on the cost of campaigns and elections as the parties reach out to Independents and try to bring them into the fold. By contrast, states with blanket primaries like that envisioned by Proposition 106 -- California and Washington, for example -- have seen campaign spending double since the adoption of the blanket open primary. If you are concerned that there is too much money in political campaigns, don’t vote for Proposition 106. On the other hand, if you are an Independent, or a member of either party who wants to see our electoral system strengthened, join me in voting yes on Proposition 103. John Shadegg, Congressman Phoenix Paid by John Shadegg for Congress ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 103 Vote “Yes” on Open primaries that includes independent electors. This supports our concept of a representative form of government. We must be more inclusive with independent voters, but not at the expense of the established 2 party system. This Open Primary solution is the only solution that helps all electors. Mark Lewis SRP Councilman District 7 Scottsdale ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 103 “True Open Primary - Proposition 103” The Maricopa County Democratic Committee (Democrats!) urges you to vote “Yes” on Propostion 103. We are your neighbors: the grass roots precinct workers who obtain signatures for candidates, seek first-time office, and staff the polls. We agree

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 28 Proposition 103 that Independents and non-partisan voters should not be excluded in the primary election. We believe this will increase voter turnout and interest. We oppose Proposition 106, which establishes a “blanket” primary election. A “blanket” primary creates a real danger of election mischief, at a very great financial cost to candidates. Proposition 106 permits rampant party cross-over voting. Proposition 103 does not permit it. Under Proposition 106, cross-over voting is unrestricted and would become common, particularly for voters of one party whose candidate in the primary is uncontested. The true open primary system, Proposition 103, is a better idea because it would not permit party voters to ignore their own choice of party and create mischief in another political party. Democrats and Republicans should vote in their own party’s primary election. If a “blanket” primary system is adopted, Arizona voters will be the losers because political debate will be stifled. Candidates will hesitate to express strong positions on issues. Candidates of great personal wealth will enjoy the largest advantage since they can better afford to appeal to the many new eligible primary voters. In these days of voter apathy, the reality is that the Democratic and Republican parties are the chief generators of political interest, particularly for races that are not well publicized. Strong political parties presently provide nearly all candidates who seek public office: rarely are they Independents. Proposition 103 won't restrict voter choice or increase the advantage of wealthy candidates. Vote Yes - true “open” Primary Proposition. 103; “No” on blanket Primary Proposi- tion 106. David Eagle, Chairman Maricopa County Democratic Committee Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 103 The volunteers of Arizona Common Cause, who work every day on Arizona government reform issues, believe that the time has come for open primaries in Arizona, as it will bring a wider selection of better candidates into the elective system. This measure, crafted by the present members of the legislature, would not achieve that goal, but would create a sham version of election reform. Proposition 106, further down this ballot, is the authentic measure that Arizonans should support. We urge you to vote “NO,” however, on Proposition 103. Rod Engelen, State Chairman Common Cause of Arizona Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 103 In the last election, the Arizona Libertarian Party invited voters registered as Inde- pendents to vote in our primary election. We did this as a way of asserting the principle that political parties must govern their own internal structure and policies, and the state has no authority in those areas.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 29 Proposition 103

Now the state wants to require Arizona’s political parties to open their primaries to all comers, whether or not they share the principles and interests most important to those political parties. Sorry, that’s simply not right. Just as a party can choose to include outsiders in its primary elections, it can choose to exclude them -- as has been customary in Arizona and elsewhere. This proposition is an attempt to dodge a serious problem raised in several lawsuits against the state by Libertarians: Independent voters are taxed to pay for primary elections they can’t vote in -- a transparent case of “taxation without representation.” As usual, government's solution isn’t to stop the taxation, but rather to seek the illu- sion of representation. Vote “NO.” Once the state can dictate the internal structure and operations of political parties, the form of government you have is no longer a representative republic. For more information about this position, or any other ballot item, please visit http:// www.lpaz.org. John Buttrick Rex Warner Ray Price Libertarian Candidate for Liberarian Candidate for Libertarian Candidate for State Representative, U.S. Senator Treasurer District 25 Goodyear Scottsdale Phoenix Gary Fallon Tom Rawles Robert Anderson Libertarian Candidate for Libertarian Candidate for Libertarian Candidate for State Senator, District 24 Governor U.S. Congress, District 6 Phoenix Mesa Phoenix Kent Van Cleave Fran Van Cleave Ernest Hancock Libertarian Candidate for Chairman, Arizona Chairman, Maricopa State Senator, District 25 Libertarian Party County Libertarian Party Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 103 Legislative Proposal to Change Arizona’s Primary Elections (NO) The Legislature and the special interests that often control it are afraid of a truly open primary. They are scared of a process which encourages more participation and a broad cross-section of candidates. This is understandable: they are the ones who have benefitted the most from the current system. They always want the status quo. However, the people have the trump card in Arizona. When it became obvious that the Open Primary Initiative was going to be successful, they scurried to find some way to salvage the situation. They came up with this Proposal, hoping it will confuse the issue or at least soften the blow. Do not fall for it. Recognize it as a desperate attempt by incumbent politicians and special interests to hang on to what they’ve got, at your expense as a voter and a citizen of Arizona. In addition, they have inadvertantly proposed a system which could be the death knell for political parties in our state. Under the Open Primary Initiative, you as a voter have the ability to choose your candidate, regardless of party, in each race.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 30 Proposition 103

Under the legislature’s plan, you only have that right if you are registered Indepen- dent or Non-Partisan. Therefore, it is to the advantage of every voter to abandon the political parties and register as an Independent. This is a bad plan. The Open Primary Initiative makes sense and will change Arizona for the better. You should vote YES on this Initiative. The Legislature’s proposal to change Arizona’s Primary Elections is all too typical of what we have seen in recent years: special interests and politicians slap together something for their own benefit that is ultimately bad for everybody. You should vote NO on the Legislature’s Proposal. Grant Woods Paul Johnson Arizona Attorney General Co-chairman/O.P.E.N. Coalition Co-chairman/O.P.E.N Coalition Phoenix Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 103 ARGUMENT AGAINST LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE Placed on the ballot to confuse voters by a contemptuous legislature, this initiative merely allows voters registered as “Independent” to choose a political party during a primary election, and vote for candidates only from that political party. It gives an Independent the right to vote as a Republican or Democrat only. This makes no sense! If an Independent wanted to vote strictly for Republicans or Democrats, he or she would have chosen that party affiliation when registering to vote. The fact that the voter chose to be an Independent, means he or she wanted the option to select the best candidate for each office--not the party. Because this is the only change the legislature proposed to make to the current primary election laws, it is not enough. All voters should be allowed to vote for the candidate that best represents the voters views, regardless of any political party affiliation. This is the only way that candidates and elected officials (as well as political parties) will become responsive to the general public, rather than to the small number of party loyalists and special interest groups who now control the primary elections. The only way this can be accomplished is by having truly open primaries, not just by allowing Independents to choose a political affiliiation.. Vote NO on this proposal. Lucia Fakonas Howard Attorney at Law Phoenix Paid for by the Open Primary Elections Now Coalition; Paul Johnson, Co-Chair

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 31 Proposition 103 BALLOT FORMAT PROPOSITION 103 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY THE LEGISLATURE OFFICIAL TITLE SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1014 PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE VII, SECTION 10, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; RELATING TO PRIMARY ELECTION LAW. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE AMENDING ARIZONA CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW VOTERS REGIS- TERED AS INDEPENDENTS, NO PARTY DESIGNATION, OR MEMBERS OF A PARTY WITHOUT BALLOT RECOGNITION TO VOTE IN THE PAR- TISAN PRIMARY OF THEIR CHOICE OF 1 OF THE 4 CURRENTLY- REC- OGNIZED POLITICAL PARTIES.

PROPOSITION 103

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of allowing voters registered as independents, no party designation, or members of a party without YES ballot recognition to vote in the partisan primary of their choice of 1 of the 4 currently-recognized political parties. A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current Primary Election system, permitting only those voters who are registered NO in a recognized political party to vote for candidates on the ballot of the political party in which they are registered.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 32 Proposition 104 PROPOSITION 104 OFFICIAL TITLE HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2015 PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE IV, PART 1, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF ARI- ZONA; RELATING TO INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring: 1. Article IV, part 1, section 1, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor: 1. Legislative authority; initiative and referendum Section 1. (1) [Senate; house of representatives; reservation of power to people] The legislative authority of the state shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and a house of representatives, but the people reserve the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject such laws and amendments at the polls, independently of the legislature; and they also reserve, for use at their own option, the power to approve or reject at the polls any act, or item, section, or part of any act, of the legislature. (2) [Initiative power] The first of these reserved powers is the initiative. Under this power ten per centum CENT of the qualified electors shall have the right to propose any measure, and fifteen per centum CENT shall have the right to propose any amendment to the constitution. (3) [Referendum power; emergency measures; effective date of acts] The second of these reserved powers is the referendum. Under this power the legislature, or five per centum CENT of the qualified electors, may order the submission to the people at the polls of any measure, or item, section, or part of any measure, enacted by the legislature, except laws immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or for the support and maintenance of the departments of the state government and state institutions; but to allow opportunity for referendum petitions, no act passed by the legislature shall be operative for ninety days after the close of the session of the legislature enacting such measure, except such as require earlier operation to preserve the public peace, health, or safety, or to provide appropriations for the support and maintenance of the departments of the state and of state institutions; provided, that no such emergency measure shall be considered passed by the legislature unless it shall state in a separate section why it is necessary that it shall become immediately operative, and shall be approved by the affirmative votes of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the legislature, taken by roll call of ayes and nays, and also approved by the governor; and should such measure be vetoed by the governor, it shall not become a law unless it shall be approved by the votes of three-fourths of the members elected to each house of the legislature, taken by roll call of ayes and nays.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 33 Proposition 104

(4) [Initiative and referendum petitions; filing] All petitions submitted under the power of the initiative shall be known as initiative petitions, and shall be filed with the secretary of state not less than four months preceding the date of the election at which the measures so proposed are to be voted upon. All petitions submitted under the power of the referendum shall be known as referendum petitions, and shall be filed with the secretary of state not more than ninety days after the final adjournment of the session of the legislature which shall have passed the measure to which the referendum is applied. The filing of a referendum petition against any item, section, or part of any measure shall not prevent the remainder of such measure from becoming operative. (5) [Effective date of initiative and referendum measures] Any measure or amendment to the constitution proposed under the initiative, and any measure to which the referendum is applied, shall be referred to a vote of the qualified electors, and shall become law when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon and upon proclamation of the governor, and not otherwise. (6) [Veto, AMENDMENT and repealing power; MEASURES APPROVED BY THE PEOPLE] FOR ALL INITIATIVE AND REFEREN- DUM MEASURES APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THOSE QUALIFIED ELECTORS VOTING ON THAT MEASURE, THE FOLLOWING APPLY: (a) The veto power of the governor, or the power of the legislature, to repeal or amend, shall not extend to initiative or referendum measures approved by a majority vote of the qualified electors SHALL NOT EXTEND TO SUCH A MEASURE. (b) THE LEGISLATURE MAY AMEND OR SUBSTANTIVELY MOD- IFY ANY INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM MEASURE OR DIVERT OR WITHHOLD MONIES CREATED FOR OR ALLOCATED TO A SPECIFIC PURPOSE BY AN INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM MEASURE ONLY BY THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS OF EACH HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATURE TAKEN BY A ROLL CALL OF THE AYES AND NAYS AND ON APPROVAL BY THE GOVERNOR. THE GOVERNOR MAY VETO SUCH AN ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE AND THE LEGISLATURE MAY OVERRIDE THAT VETO BY THE AFFIRMA- TIVE VOTES OF THREE-FOURTHS OF THE MEMBERS OF EACH HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATURE TAKEN BY A ROLL CALL OF THE AYES AND NAYS. (c) THE LEGISLATURE MAY REPEAL ANY INITIATIVE OR REF- ERENDUM MEASURE ONLY IF AT LEAST FIVE YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE APPROVAL OF THAT MEASURE BY A MAJORITY OF THOSE QUALIFIED ELECTORS VOTING ON IT AND ONLY BY THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS OF EACH HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATURE TAKEN BY A ROLL CALL OF THE AYES AND NAYS AND ON APPROVAL BY THE GOVERNOR. (d) BY A MAJORITY VOTE, THE LEGISLATURE MAY REFER BACK TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE AT THE NEXT REGULAR GEN- ERAL ELECTION ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO OR REPEALS OF ANY MEASURES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE PEOPLE UNDER THE POWER OF THE INITIATIVE OR THE REFERENDUM.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 34 Proposition 104

(e) NO MEASURE THAT AMENDS, REPEALS OR SUBSTAN- TIVELY MODIFIES AN INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM MEASURE OR DIVERTS OR WITHHOLDS MONIES CREATED FOR OR ALLOCATED TO A SPECIFIC PURPOSE BY AN INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM MAY BE ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE. (7) [Number of qualified electors] The whole number of votes cast for all candidates for governor at the general election last preceding the filing of any initiative or referendum petition on a state or county measure shall be the basis on which the number of qualified electors required to sign such petition shall be computed. (8) [Local, city, town or county matters] The powers of the initiative and the referendum are hereby further reserved to the qualified electors of every incorporated city, town, and county as to all local, city, town, or county matters on which such incorporated cities, towns, and counties are or shall be empow- ered by general laws to legislate. Such incorporated cities, towns, and counties may prescribe the manner of exercising said powers within the restrictions of general laws. Under the power of the initiative fifteen per centum CENT of the qualified electors may propose measures on such local, city, town, or county matters, and ten per centum CENT of the electors may propose the referendum on legislation enacted within and by such city, town, or county. Until provided by general law, said cities and towns may prescribe the basis on which said percentages shall be computed. (9) [Form and contents of initiative and of referendum petitions; verification] Every initiative or referendum petition shall be addressed to the secretary of state in the case of petitions for or on state measures, and to the clerk of the board of supervisors, city clerk, or corresponding officer in the case of petitions for or on county, city, or town measures; and shall contain the declaration of each petitioner, for himself, that he is a qualified elector of the state (and in the case of petitions for or on city, town, or county measures, of the city, town, or county affected), his postoffice address, the street and number, if any, of his residence, and the date on which he signed such petition. Each sheet containing petitioners’ signatures shall be attached to a full and correct copy of the title and text of the measure so proposed to be initiated or referred to the people, and every sheet of every such petition containing signatures shall be verified by the affidavit of the person who circulated said sheet or petition, setting forth that each of the names on said sheet was signed in the presence of the affiant and that in the belief of the affiant each signer was a qualified elector of the state, or in the case of a city, town, or county measure, of the city, town, or county affected by the measure so proposed to be initiated or referred to the people. (10) [Official ballot] When any initiative or referendum petition or any measure referred to the people by the legislature shall be filed, in accordance with this section, with the secretary of state, he shall cause to be printed on the official ballot at the next regular general election the title and number of said measure, together with the words “yes” and “no” in such manner that the electors may express at the polls their approval or disapproval of the measure. (11) [Publication of measures] The text of all measures to be submitted shall be published as proposed amendments to the constitution are published, and in submitting such measures and proposed amendments the secretary of

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 35 Proposition 104

state and all other officers shall be guided by the general law until legislation shall be especially provided therefor. (12) [Conflicting measures or constitutional amendments] If two or more conflicting measures or amendments to the constitution shall be approved by the people at the same election, the measure or amendment receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail in all particulars as to which there is conflict. (13) [Canvass of votes; proclamation] It shall be the duty of the secretary of state, in the presence of the governor and the chief justice of the supreme court, to canvass the votes for and against each such measure or proposed amendment to the constitution within thirty days after the election, and upon the completion of the canvass the governor shall forthwith issue a proclamation, giving the whole number of votes cast for and against each measure or proposed amendment, and declaring such measures or amendments as are approved by a majority of those voting thereon to be law. (14) [Reservation of legislative power] This section shall not be construed to deprive the legislature of the right to enact any measure. (15) [Self-executing] This section of the constitution shall be, in all respects, self-executing. 2. Applicability This measure applies prospectively to actions of the Legislature relating to measures that are initiated or referred by the people, whether initiated or referred before or after the effective date of this measure. 3. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article XXI, Constitution of Arizona.

FINAL VOTE CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON HCR 2015 House - Ayes, 45 Senate - Ayes, 19 Nays, 15 Nays, 9 Not Voting, 0 Not Voting, 2

House Final Passage Senate Final Passage Per Joint Conference Per Joint Conference Ayes, 31 Ayes, 17, on Nays, 22 reconsideration Not Voting, 7 Nays, 12 Not Voting, 1

ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (In Compliance With A.R.S. Section 19-124) Proposition 104 would make a series of changes to the Arizona Constitution relating to initiative and referendum. Under current law, the State Legislature by a majority vote may subsequently amend or repeal any ballot measure that has been approved by the voters, unless that ballot measure was approved by a majority of the people who

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 36 Proposition 104 are registered to vote in this state, rather than by a majority of people who voted on the ballot measure. Proposition 104 would make all of the following changes apply to any ballot measure that is approved by a majority of the people who voted on the measure: 1. Prohibits the Governor from vetoing the approved measure. 2. Prohibits the State Legislature from repealing the approved measure until at least five years have passed since the measure was approved. This repeal would require a two-thirds vote of the State Legislature and the approval of the Governor. 3. Requires a two-thirds vote of the State Legislature to amend or substantively modify the approved measure. 4. Requires a two-thirds vote of the State Legislature to transfer funds that were designated to a specific purpose by the approved measure. 5. Allows the Governor to veto any bill from the State Legislature that amends the approved measure and requires a three-fourths vote of the State Legislature to override that veto. 6. Allows the State Legislature by a majority vote to refer back to the ballot any proposed legislative amendments to any ballot measure that has been approved by the voters. 7. Prohibits the State Legislature from using "emergency legislation" to enact any changes to the approved measure. (Emergency legislation requires a two-thirds vote of the State Legislature to pass, goes into effect immediately on approval of the Governor and is not subject to referendum by the people.) This proposition would apply to any legislation passed by the State Legislature after the proposition goes into effect and would apply to any ballot measure approved by the voters, whether before or after this proposition goes into effect. ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 104 The Healthy Arizona suggests a “Yes” vote on Prop 104. At the same time we urge strong public scrutiny of the failure of the Administration and Legislature to implement any provision of the Healthy Arizona Initiative, passed overwhelmingly by voters two years (and two legislative sessions) ago. The Healthy Arizona Initiative (then Prop 203) has two parts. The first was to raise AHCCCS healthcare eligibility levels from the woefully inadequate 35% of the federal poverty level to include all Arizonans living in poverty, including the working poor. The second part was to fund six successful healthcare programs (Healthy Fam- ilies, Health Start, WIC, teenage pregnancy prevention, rural health and research) created by the legislature but later defunded or underfunded. This funding was to have come from lottery money, after the Heritage Fund. (See our comment under Prop 304 for more analysis of what happened with the lottery money.) Other worthy healthcare programs, notably Kids’ Care and premium sharing, have been supported by our Coalition as partial responses to the electoral mandate of 1996, but they still fall far short of what the voters demanded as minimum decent healthcare access. This current initiative will not only protect future initiatives from such treatment, but passage of the five-year repeal clause can be considered further

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 37 Proposition 104 endorsement of recently passed initiatives, such as ours. Support democracy in Ari- zona, and healthcare availability: Vote “yes.” While suggesting a “yes” vote on Prop 104, the Coalition does not oppose Prop 105. Steven Nash, Chair Maryetta Patch, Vice Chair Healthy Arizona Coalition Healthy Arizona Coalition Tucson Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 104 Argument for Proposition 104 (HCR 2015) The volunteers of Common Cause / Arizona believe that this proposition provides a better solution to the problem of a Legislature that does not respect the will of the people. This measure will retroactively protect measures adopted by the people of Arizona, such as the Heritage Fund, from future dismemberment by the Legislature. It also avoids a technical problem relating to the appropriation of funds in the com- peting measure. Arizona Common Cause volunteers strongly urge Arizona voters to vote “YES” on Proposition 104. Rod Engelen, State Chairman Common Cause of Arizona Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 104 The Arizona Farm Bureau, a voluntary organization of the Arizona’s farmers and ranchers, SUPPORTS Proposition 104 and OPPOSES Proposition 105. Proposition 104 is a balance between this state’s representative form of government and the people’s right to initiate change in state law. Proposition 104 also protects the public when out-of-state interests and big money stymy the debate on a ballot issue. The state legislature must have the ability to address, debate and change laws that are ineffective, outdated or have produced an unintended consequence which must be fixed in a timely manner. Voters can not fix unintended consequences in a timely manner. That is why we elect our representatives. But, there is sanctity in the people’s vote. Proposition 104 raises the standard by which the legislature may change a voter approved initiative or referendum. It requires that two-thirds of the legislature vote for a proposed change, not the current majority vote. In today’s legislature, this will require bipartisan support and support from within the diverse views of each party. It also parallels what is required to override a Governor’s veto. On the other hand, Proposition 105 is a lawyer’s dream and the public’s night- mare. The legislature will only be allowed to change a voter approved law if their proposed change “…furthers the purpose of such measure…”. What does that mean? It means lawyers descending upon the capital arguing what those five words mean every time any change is proposed. On top of this, it takes a three-fourths vote of the legislature to enact a change that “furthers the purpose of such measure”.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 38 Proposition 104

Let’s respect our representative form of government and our initiative process. Vote YES on Proposition 104 and Vote NO on Proposition 105. Ken Evans, President Andy Kurtz, Secretary and Chief Arizona Farm Bureau Federation Administrative Officer Yuma Arizona Farm Bureau Federation Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 104 VOTE “YES” ON PROPOSITION 104! Proposition 104 is intended to protect the laws we as citizens create through our powers of initiative and referendum from being undermined by subsequent actions of the State Legislature. Should it be necessary to “fine tune” voter approved law to make it more workable or to keep up with changing times, Proposition 104 is designed to ensure the State Legislature must work in a bi-partisan manner and in partnership with the individuals and organizations which were successful in their initiative and referendum efforts. Proposition 104 is the product of the combined efforts of a wide variety of public interest organizations including Valley Citizens League, League of Women Voters and Arizona Common Cause. Proposition 104: • Protects all initiated and referred law “whether initiated or referred before or after” the 1998 General Election--including the Heritage Fund, the Cam- paign Finance Reform Initiative, Healthy Arizona Initiative, the State Lottery, and the Tobacco Tax. • Eliminates the Governor’s authority to veto the voters’ approval of an initiative or referendum. • Eliminates the Legislature’s authority to repeal voter approved initiatives or referendums less than 5 years old. • Requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to amend, modify, or repeal any initiated or referred law. • Requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to divert initiative created funds to other uses. • Prohibits the attachment of emergency clauses to Legislative measures which amend, modify, or repeal initiated or referred law. • Ensures that by a simple majority vote of each house, the Legislature can voluntarily refer measures which amend, modify, or repeal initiated or referred law to a vote of the people. We urge you to VOTE “YES” ON PROPOSITION 104! Tony Cosentino Bart Turner President Executive Director Valley Citizens League Valley Citizens League Phoenix Phoenix

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 39 Proposition 104 ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 104 No on Proposition 104 As a former Arizona Secretary of State, I can tell you that I have never seen a more deceptive attack on the initiative process than Proposition 104. Proposition 104 was placed on the ballot by the legislature to confuse voters so they don’t vote for real reform. The real reform is the Voter Protection Act, which was signed by 245,000 Arizona voters and is co-chaired by Attorney General Grant Woods and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The Voter Protection Act (Proposition 105) will prohibit the Legislature from repealing citizen measures approved by voters and prohibit the governor from vetoing ballot measures. Technical amendments would allowed for only if they further the purpose of the initiative and could be adopted only with a ¾ vote of the entire legislature. Proposition 104 is deceptive, watered down, and only meant to divide the vote. It ought to be renamed for what it is “The Politician Protection’s Act.” That’s because the legislative sponsors of this measure are the same people who for years have been thwarting the will of the people by repealing and amending ballot measures. I strongly urge you to vote No on Proposition 104 - The Politician’s Protection Act - because it is just a wolf in a sheep’s clothing. Instead, I urge you to vote Yes on Proposition 105 - The Voter Protection Act. Richard Mahoney Former Arizona Secretary of State Chairman, Voter Protection Alliance Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 104 ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 104 As a former Arizona Attorney General (and Governor’s Chief of Staff), I can tell you that Proposition 104 is a classic “bait and switch.” It was placed on the ballot by the Legislature in hopes of confusing you so that you will not vote “Yes” for the Voter Protection Act – Proposition 105. But as a curb on Legislative arrogance in undoing measures that the people have approved at the polls, Proposition 104 has serious flaws: It allows the Legislature to totally repeal an initiative or referendum approved by the voters, after just five years. It allows the Legislature immediately to amend an initiative or referendum with just a 2/3 vote. And these amendments would not have to further the purpose of the initiative or referendum, but could completely change the purpose or direction of what the people had approved. Proposition 104 was drafted by legislators, eager to preserve legislative power from the restrictions that the Voter Protection Act (Proposition 105) would impose. I seriously urge you to vote “No” on Proposition 104. Accept no substitutes – instead vote “Yes” on Proposition 105, the true Voter Protection Act. Proposition 105 is much

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 40 Proposition 104 stronger medicine, placed on the ballot by 245,000 Arizona voters. Proposition 105 will preserve the will of the people. John A. “Jack” LaSota Former Attorney General Phoenix Paid for by Voter Protection Alliance; Richard Mahoney, Chairman ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 104 ARGUMENT AGAINST HCR 2015 HCR 2015 is a tool of deception conceived by the Arizona State Legislature. It is designed to meet the individual needs of the legislature and to ignore the voice of Arizona voters. The honorable people of the State of Arizona have entrusted the state legislature to abide by the ballot measures they have voted into law. Time and again Arizona voters have overwhelmingly voiced their objection to the Arizona State Leg- islature’s outrageous idea that “they know what is best for the people of Arizona”, ignoring the ballot measures we have voted into law. A vote against this measure tells our elected representatives that they work for the people of Arizona. By voting no on HCR 2015 we say to the Arizona State Legislature, “Obey the laws we have passed as we obey the laws you place on us.” Austin G. Nunez Chairman, San Xavier District Tohono O’odham Nation Tucson Paid for by Voter Protection Alliance; Richard Mahoney, Chairman

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 41 Proposition 104 BALLOT FORMAT PROPOSITION 104 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY THE LEGISLATURE OFFICIAL TITLE HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2015 PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE IV, PART 1, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF ARI- ZONA; RELATING TO INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE AMENDING ARIZONA CONSTITUTION RELATING TO INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM MEASURES; PROHIBITS GOVERNOR’S VETO; PROHIB- ITS LEGISLATIVE REPEAL FOR 5 YEARS; REQUIRES 2/3rds VOTE TO REPEAL, AMEND, SUBSTANTIVELY MODIFY OR TRANSFER FUNDS DESIGNATED BY MEASURE; ALLOWS GOVERNOR TO VETO BILL AMENDING MEASURE; REQUIRES 3/4ths VOTE TO OVERRIDE VETO; PROHIBITS “EMERGENCY” CLAUSE ON AMENDMENTS. PROPOSITION 104

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of placing certain limits on veto, amendment, repeal or transfer of funds approved by initia- YES tive or referendum, including prohibiting the Governor from vetoing initiative or referendum measures, prohibiting legislative repeal for 5 years and requiring a 2/3rds vote of the State Legislature to repeal, amend, substantively modify or transfer funds designated by an approved measure. A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current constitutional provisions for veto, amendment or repeal of initiatives NO and referenda.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 42 Proposition 105 PROPOSITION 105 OFFICIAL TITLE AN INITIATIVE MEASURE PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA: AMENDING ARTICLE IV, PART 1, SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 6, CONSTITU- TION OF ARIZONA, RELATING TO ATTEMPTS TO VETO, AMEND AND REPEAL MEASURES ENACTED BY INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM AND TO APPROPRIATE OR DIVERT FUNDS CREATED OR ALLOCATED TO A SPE- CIFIC PURPOSE BY AN INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM; AMENDING ARTI- CLE IV, PART 1, SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 14, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, RELATING TO RESERVATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER TO ADOPT MEASURES THAT SUPERSEDE MEASURES ADOPTED BY INITIA- TIVE OR REFERENDUM; AND AMENDING ARTICLE IV, PART 1, SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 15, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, RELATING TO THE LEGIS- LATURE’S RIGHT TO REFER MEASURES TO THE PEOPLE AND RENUM- BERING TO CONFORM. TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Be it enacted by the People of the State of Arizona: The Constitution of Arizona is proposed to be amended as follows, by amending Article IV, Part 1, Section 1, subsections 6 and 14, and adding new subsection 15 and renumbering to conform, if approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon and on proclamation of the Governor: Section 1. Article IV, Part 1, Section 1, Constitution of Arizona, is amended to read: Part 1. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM § 1. Legislative authority; initiative and referendum Section 2. (1) Senate; house of representatives; reservation of power to people. The legislative authority of the State shall be vested in the Legislature, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives, but the people reserve the power to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and to enact or reject such laws and amendments at the polls, independently of the Legislature; and they also reserve, for use at their own option, the power to approve or reject at the polls any Act, or item, section, or part of any Act, of the Legislature. (2) Initiative power. The first of these reserved powers is the Initiative. Under this power ten per centum of the qualified electors shall have the right to propose any measure, and fifteen per centum shall have the right to proposed any amendment to the Constitution. (3) Referendum power; emergency measures; effective date of acts The second of these reserved powers is the Referendum. Under this power the Legislature, or five per centum of the qualified electors, may order the submission to the people at the polls of any measure, or item, section, or part of any

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 43 Proposition 105

measure, enacted by the Legislature, except laws immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or for the support and maintenance of the departments of the State Government and State institutions; but to allow opportunity for Referendum Petitions, no Act passed by the Legislature shall be operative for ninety days after the close of the session of the Legislature enacting such measure, except such as require earlier operation to preserve the public peace, health, or safety, or to provide appropriations for the support and maintenance of the Departments of the State and of State institutions; provided, that no such emergency measure shall be considered passed by the Legislature unless it shall state in a separate section why it is necessary that it shall become immediately operative, and shall be approved by the affirmative votes of two- thirds of the members elected to each House of the Legislature, taken by roll call of ayes and nays, and also approved by the Governor; and should such measure be vetoed by the Governor, it shall not become a law unless it shall be approved by the votes of three-fourths of the members elected to each House of the Legis- lature, taken by roll call of ayes and nays. (4) Initiative and referendum petitions; filing. All petitions submitted under the power of the Initiative shall be known as Initiative Petitions, and shall be filed with the Secretary of State not less than four months preceding the date of the election at which the measures so proposed are to be voted upon. All petitions submitted under the power of the Referendum shall be known as Referen- dum Petitions, and shall be filed with the Secretary of State not more than ninety days after the final adjournment of the session of the Legislature which shall have passed the measure to which the Referendum is applied. The filing of a Referendum Petition against any item, section, or part of any measure shall not prevent the remainder of such measure from becoming operative. (5) Effective date of initiative and referendum measures. Any measure or amendment to the Constitution proposed under the Initiative, and any measure to which the Referendum is applied, shall be referred to a vote of the qualified electors, and shall become law when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon and upon proclamation of the Governor, and not otherwise. (6) Veto and repealing power (6)(A) VETO OF INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM. The veto power of the Governor, or the power of the Legislature, to repeal or amend, shall not extend to initiative or referendum measures approved by a majority vote of the qualified electors. THE VETO POWER OF THE GOVERNOR SHALL NOT EXTEND TO AN INITIATIVE MEASURE APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST THEREON OR TO A REFERENDUM MEASURE DECIDED BY A MAJOR- ITY OF THE VOTES CAST THEREON. (6) (B) LEGISLATURE’S POWER TO REPEAL INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM. THE LEGISLATURE SHALL NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REPEAL AN INITIATIVE MEASURE APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST THEREON OR TO REPEAL A REFERENDUM MEASURE DECIDED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST THEREON. (6) (C) LEGISLATURE’S POWER TO AMEND INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM. THE LEGISLATURE SHALL NOT HAVE THE POWER TO AMEND AN INITIATIVE MEASURE APPROVED BY A MAJORITY

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 44 Proposition 105

OF THE VOTES CAST THEREON, OR TO AMEND A REFERENDUM MEASURE DECIDED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST THEREON, UNLESS THE AMENDING LEGISLATION FURTHERS THE PURPOSES OF SUCH MEASURE AND AT LEAST THREE-FOURTHS OF THE MEMBERS OF EACH HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATURE, BY A ROLL CALL OF AYES AND NAYS, VOTE TO AMEND SUCH MEASURE. (6) (D) LEGISLATURE’S POWER TO APPROPRIATE OR DIVERT FUNDS CREATED BY INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM. THE LEGISLATURE SHALL NOT HAVE THE POWER TO APPROPRIATE OR DIVERT FUNDS CREATED OR ALLOCATED TO A SPECIFIC PURPOSE BY AN INITIATIVE MEASURE APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST THEREON, OR BY A REFERENDUM MEASURE DECIDED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST THEREON, UNLESS THE APPROPRIATION OR DIVERSION OF FUNDS FURTHERS THE PUR- POSES OF SUCH MEASURE AND AT LEAST THREE-FOURTHS OF THE MEMBERS OF EACH HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATURE, BY A ROLL CALL OF AYES AND NAYS, VOTE TO APPROPRIATE OR DIVERT SUCH FUNDS. (7) Number of qualified electors. The whole number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the general election last preceding the filing of any Initiative or Referendum petition on a State or county measure shall be the basis on which the number of qualified electors required to sign such petition shall be computed. (8) Local, city, town or county matters. The powers of the Initiative and the Referendum are hereby further reserved to the qualified electors of every incorporated city, town, and county as to all local, city, town, or county matters on which such incorporated cities, towns, and counties are or shall be empow- ered by general laws to legislate. Such incorporated cities, towns, and counties may prescribe the manner of exercising said powers within the restrictions of general laws. Under the power of the Initiative fifteen per centum of the qualified electors may propose measures on such local, city, town, or county matters, and ten per centum of the electors may propose the Referendum on legislation enacted within and by such city, town, or county. Until provided by general law, said cities and towns may prescribe the basis on which said percentages shall be computed. (9) Form and contents of initiative and of referendum petitions; verification. Every Initiative or Referendum petition shall be addressed to the Sec- retary of State in the case of petitions for or on State measures, and to the clerk of the Board of Supervisors, city clerk, or corresponding officer in the case of petitions for or on county, city, or town measures; and shall contain the declaration of each petitioner, for himself, that he is a qualified elector of the State (and in the case of petitions for or on city, town, or county measures, of the city, town, or county affected), his post office address, the street and number, if any, of his residence, and the date on which he signed such petition. Each sheet containing petitioners’ signatures shall be attached to a full and correct copy of the title and text of the measure so proposed to be initiated or referred to the people, and every sheet of every such petition containing signatures shall be verified by the affidavit of the person who circulated said sheet or petition, setting forth that

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 45 Proposition 105

each of the names on said sheet was signed in the presence of the affiant and that in the belief of the affiant each signer was a qualified elector of the State, or in the case of a city, town, or county measure, of the city, town, or county affected by the measure so proposed to be initiated or referred to the people. (10) Official ballot. When any Initiative or Referendum petition or any measure referred to the people by the Legislature shall be filed, in accordance with this section, with the Secretary of State, he shall cause to be printed on the official ballot at the next regular general election the title and number of said measure, together with the words “Yes” and “No” in such manner that the electors may express at the polls their approval or disapproval of the measure. (11) Publication of measures. The text of all measures to be submitted shall be published as proposed amendments to the Constitution are published, and in submitting such measures and proposed amendments the Secretary of State and all other officers shall be guided by the general law until legislation shall be especially provided therefor. (12) Conflicting measures or constitutional amendments. If two or more conflicting measures or amendments to the Constitution shall be approved by the people at the same election, the measure or amendment receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail in all particulars as to which there is conflict. (13) Canvass of votes; proclamation. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, in the presence of the Governor and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, to canvass the votes for and against each such measure or proposed amendment to the Constitution within thirty days after the election, and upon the completion of the canvass the Governor shall forthwith issue a proclamation, giving the whole number of votes cast for and against each measure or proposed amendment, and declaring such measures or amendments as are approved by a majority of those voting thereon to be law. (14) Reservation of legislative power. This section shall not be construed to deprive the Legislature of the right to enact any measure . EXCEPT THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHALL NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ADOPT ANY MEASURE THAT SUPERSEDES, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY INITIA- TIVE MEASURE APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST THEREON OR ANY REFERENDUM MEASURE DECIDED BY A MAJOR- ITY OF THE VOTES CAST THEREON UNLESS THE SUPERSEDING MEASURE FURTHERS THE PURPOSES OF THE INITIATIVE OR REFER- ENDUM MEASURE AND AT LEAST THREE-FOURTHS OF THE MEM- BERS OF EACH HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATURE, BY A ROLL CALL OF AYES AND NAYS, VOTE TO SUPERSEDE SUCH INITIATIVE OR REFER- ENDUM MEASURE. (15) LEGISLATURE’S RIGHT TO REFER MEASURE TO THE PEOPLE. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO DEPRIVE OR LIMIT THE LEGISLATURE OF THE RIGHT TO ORDER THE SUBMISSION TO THE PEOPLE AT THE POLLS OF ANY MEASURE, ITEM, SECTION, OR PART OF ANY MEASURE. (15) (16) Self-executing. This section of the Constitution shall be, in all respects, self-executing.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 46 Proposition 105

SECTION 2. SECTION 1 HEREOF SHALL APPLY RETROAC- TIVELY TO ALL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM MEASURES DECIDED BY THE VOTERS AT AND AFTER THE NOVEMBER 1998 GENERAL ELECTION. ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (In Compliance With A.R.S. Section 19-124) Proposition 105 would make a series of changes to the Arizona Constitution relating to initiative and referendum. Under current law, the State Legislature by a majority vote may subsequently amend or repeal any ballot measure that has been approved by the voters, except if that ballot measure was approved by a majority of the people who are registered to vote in this state, rather than by a majority of people who voted on the ballot measure. Proposition 105 would make all of the following changes apply to any ballot measure that is approved by a majority of the people who voted on that ballot measure: 1. Prohibits the Governor from vetoing the approved measure. 2. Prohibits the State Legislature from ever repealing the approved measure or from amending an approved measure except as provided below. 3. Requires a three-fourths vote of the State Legislature to amend or supersede the approved measure and requires that the legislation "furthers the purposes" of the approved measure. 4. Requires a three-fourths vote of the State Legislature to appropriate or transfer funds that were designated to a specific purpose by the approved measure and requires that the appropriation or transfer of funds "furthers the purposes" of the approved measure. 5. Provides that the State Legislature is not limited in its right to refer any measure to the ballot. This proposition would apply to any ballot measure that is approved by the voters on or after the November, 1998 election. ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 105 Yes on Proposition 105 There is nothing more essential to a democracy than having your vote count. That’s how we distinguish real democracies like our own from other regimes who only go through the motions of voting, while determining the actual results in a back room. Lately, this sort of back room manipulation of election results is exactly what the Ari- zona legislature has been doing to voter-approved ballot measures. A number of citizen measures dealing with campaign reform, health care, and the environment have been under assault by the politicians. Recently, the legislature repealed Proposition 200 only a few months after it had been approved. The message is clear from the politicians: “we know better than you.” Let’s send a message back in 1998 by approving the Voter Protection Act (Proposi- tion 105). Proposition 105 will prohibit the Legislature from repealing citizen mea-

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 47 Proposition 105 sures approved by voters and prohibit the governor from vetoing ballot measures. Technical amendments would allowed for only if they further the purpose of the initiative and could be adopted only with a ¾ vote of the entire legislature. We have seen a lot of scandals in Arizona politics over the last few years, but the legislature thwarting the will of the people seems to me the ultimate act of arrogance. Let put an end to this by voting Yes on Proposition 105. Richard Mahoney Former Secretary of State Chairman, Voter Protection Alliance Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 105 YES 105 In Favor of the Voter Protection Alliance Act (11-C-98) The will of the people is the most important element of our government. Once an election takes place, votes can’t be thrown away just because a few politicians don’t like the results of an election. I believe Arizona voters are smart enough to know what they are voting for. I don’t think the Legislature or the Governor should have the right to thwart or veto the will of the people. I urge you to vote Yes on the Voter Protection Act. It will preserve the will of the people in Arizona once and for all. Joe Arpaio, Sheriff Honorary Co-chair, Voter Protection Alliance Phoenix Paid for by Voter Protection Alliance; Richard Mahoney, Chairman ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 105 Yes on the Voter Protection Act (11-C-98) The ultimate test of a democracy is whether a citizen’s vote actually counts. There is a disturbing trend in Arizona in which citizens pass initiatives by overwhelming margins, only to watch the legislature turn around within months and gut what the voters passed. This has occurred on numerous issues, including drug policy reform, health care, and the environment. I don’t agree with every initiative that has passed in Arizona, but I fundamentally believe that the politicians at the legislature have no right to thwart the mandate of voters. We must honor the will of the people. The Voter Protection Act ensures that the Legislature cannot repeal an initiative or referendum approved by the voters. The Act prohibits the governor from vetoing an initiative or referendum approved by voters. It allows the legislature only to make strictly technical amendments to further the purpose of the measure with a ¾ super majority.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 48 Proposition 105

So vote Yes on the Voter Protection Amendment. Let the will of the people stand. Grant Woods Arizona Attorney General Phoenix Paid for by Voter Protection Alliance; Richard Mahoney, Chairman ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 105 Yes on 105 This initiative is more than simple words placed on a ballot. This initiative provides protection for the will and voice of all walks of voters in the Great State of Arizona. The voting citizens of this State, have had a voice that is being continually ignored by State Elected Officials. To vote YES on 11C98 we enhance our voting power and shield the will of the people from any further Executive or Legislative manipulation. It prohibits our State Elected Officials from repealing future initiatives passed by the vote of the people. By Voting Yes on 11C98, it assures the strength and spirit of the Arizona Constitution remains in the power of the people. We indigenous and Native Arizona People demand our Elected Politicians to follow the will of the people of the Great State of Arizona. Daniel L. Preston Jr. Vice Chairman, San Xavier District Tohono O’odham Nation Tucson Paid for by Voter Protection Alliance; Richard Mahoney, Chairman ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 105 Vote “NO” on Proposition 105 Proposition 105 is one of two propositions available to voters in this election intended to protect the laws we as citizens create through initiative and referendum from being undermined by subsequent actions of the State Legislature. Though probably well intentioned, Proposition 105 is inferior to Proposition 104 in the following ways. Proposition 105: • Fails to protect existing initiated or referred law --it applies only to measures decided “at and after the 1998 General Election”. Therefore, it offers no protection to The Heritage Fund, The Campaign Finance Reform Initiative, The Healthy Arizona Initiative, The State Lottery, The Tobacco Tax, or any of the other voter approved initiatives passed since statehood. • Requires a ¾ vote of the Legislature to amend initiated or referred law. This provides too much power to the ¼ minority by allowing a small a number of legislators to prevent the enactment of good amendments to initiative law. Additionally, this magnifies the opportunity for individual legislators to act as “hold-outs” until other non-related concessions are made to gain their vote.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 49 Proposition 105

• Requires any amendment of initiated or referred law “further the purposes of” the original initiative or referendum. The language “furthers the purposes of” is too open to interpretation and leaves all legislative amendments unneces- sarily vulnerable to court challenges. • Requires a ¾ vote of the Legislature to appropriate initiative created funds even when such appropriation is in keeping with the directives of the initiative. This is an unnecessary restriction which may in fact prevent or delay the implementation of successful initiatives. For these reasons we urge you to VOTE “NO” on PROPOSITION 105 and VOTE “YES” on PROPOSITION 104. Tony Cosentino Bart Turner President Executive Director Valley Citizens League Valley Citizens League Phoenix Phoenix

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 50 Proposition 105 BALLOT FORMAT PROPOSITION 105 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY INITIATIVE PETITION OFFICIAL TITLE PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA: AMENDING ARTICLE IV, PART 1, SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 6, CONSTI- TUTION OF ARIZONA, RELATING TO ATTEMPTS TO VETO, AMEND AND REPEAL MEASURES ENACTED BY INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM AND TO APPROPRIATE OR DIVERT FUNDS CREATED OR ALLOCATED TO A SPECIFIC PURPOSE BY AN INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM; AMENDING ARTICLE IV, PART 1, SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 14, CONSTI- TUTION OF ARIZONA, RELATING TO RESERVATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER TO ADOPT MEASURES THAT SUPERSEDE MEASURES ADOPTED BY INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM; AND AMENDING ARTI- CLE IV, PART 1, SECTION 1, SUBSECTION 15, CONSTITUTION OF ARI- ZONA, RELATING TO THE LEGISLATURE’S RIGHT TO REFER MEASURES TO THE PEOPLE AND RENUMBERING TO CONFORM. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE AMENDING ARIZONA CONSTITUTION RELATING TO INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM MEASURES; PROHIBITS GOVERNOR’S VETO; PROHIB- ITS LEGISLATIVE REPEAL; REQUIRES 3/4ths VOTE TO AMEND MEA- SURE, TO SUPERSEDE MEASURE, OR TO TRANSFER FUNDS DESIGNATED BY THE MEASURE, AND ONLY IF EACH FURTHERS THE PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE. PROPOSITION 105

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of placing certain limits on veto, amendment, repeal or transfer of funds approved by initia- YES tive or referendum, including prohibiting the Governor from vetoing initiative or referendum measures, prohibiting legislative repeal and requiring a 3/4ths vote of the State Legislature to amend, to supersede a measure, or to transfer funds designated by an approved measure and only if the legislation furthers the purpose of the original measure.

A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current constitutional provisions for veto, amendment or repeal of initiatives NO and referenda.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 51 Proposition 106 PROPOSITION 106 OFFICIAL TITLE AN INITIATIVE MEASURE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA: AMENDING ARTICLE VII, SECTION 10, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, RELATING TO PRIMARY ELECTIONS. TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT Be it enacted by the People of the State of Arizona: The Constitution of Arizona is proposed to be amended as follows if approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon and on proclamation of the Gover- nor: Section 1. Article VII, Section 10, Constitution of Arizona, is amended to read: 10. Direct Primary Election Law; OPEN PRIMARY ELECTIONS Section 10. The Legislature shall enact a direct primary election law, which shall provide for the nomination of candidates for all elective state, county, and city offices, including candidates for United States Senator and for Representative in Congress AND SUCH OTHER LEGISLATION TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION. AT ANY PRIMARY ELECTION HELD PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA OR IN WHICH PUBLIC FUNDS ARE SPENT, EVERY LAW- FULLY REGISTERED VOTER MAY VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE OF THE VOTER’S CHOICE FOR EACH OFFICE, REGARDLESS OF THE VOTER’S POLITICAL AFFILIATION AND WITHOUT A DECLARATION OF POLITICAL FAITH OR ADHERENCE ON THE PART OF THE VOTER EXCEPT THAT NO VOTER MAY VOTE FOR MORE CANDIDATES RUN- NING FOR NOMINATION FOR ANY OFFICE IN ANY PRIMARY THAN THE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO BE ELECTED TO THAT OFFICE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS OF A POLITICAL PARTY. ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (In Compliance With A.R.S. Section 19-124) Proposition 106 would amend the Arizona Constitution to require that for any primary election held in this state any registered voter could vote for any candidate for each office, regardless of political party affiliation. This proposition would effectively require that all candidates for office appear on a single ballot at the primary election and would allow any registered voter to vote in that primary. Under current law, only voters who have designated themselves on their voter registration forms as a member of one of the four major political parties (Democrat, Libertarian, Reform or Republican) are eligible to vote in the party’s primary election.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 52 Proposition 106

Proposition 106 would apply to any primary election that uses public funds, but not for elections for officers within a political party. ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 106 OPEN PRIMARY INITIATIVE (YES) The open primary is based upon a simple proposition: people should be able to vote for the best person for the job, period. The current electoral system has been manip- ulated by and for the two major political parties. Due to gerrymandering by the Leg- islature, most elections are either decided before they are held, or dominated by extremist candidates who know they can be elected by appealing to a very narrow group of voters. The result has been elected officials who are out of step with the basic desires and needs of the people. Under the open primary, political parties will do very well if they have the best candidates with the best ideas. However, they will not do well simply because they have rigged the system to their advantage. The open primary is about more choices and more power to the people themselves. It has worked well for decades in other states, producing a better cross-section of candidates and a higher level of voter participation. Nowhere has any subterfuge of the process been documented. To the contrary, the open primary in other states has done what it will do in Arizona: it has opened the political process to more people and made it more difficult for the extremists or special interests to dominate the process. You should vote YES on the OPEN PRIMARY INITIATIVE. Grant Woods Paul Johnson Arizona Attorney General Co-chairman/O.P.E.N. Coalition Co-chairman, O.P.E.N. Coalition Phoenix Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 106 The best way to vote “none of the above” in elections where a good selection of candidates is not present on the ballot, is to open up Arizona elections as wide as our landscape. Open primaries, particularly the version that will be created by Proposi- tion 106, will give voters a wider menu of candidates, while still retaining party designations on the ballot for those voters who want to vote along party lines. Without this change, Arizona elections will continue to produce candidates from the odd margins of political thought, rather than from the mainstream. Arizona Common Cause volunteers strongly urge Arizona voters to vote “YES” on Proposition 106, which is vastly superior to the legislative version listed elsewhere on this ballot. Rod Engelen, State Chairman Common Cause of Arizona Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 106 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF OPEN PRIMARY INITIATIVE Arizonans deserve a better election system than our current closed primary system. We deserve a system where political participation is rewarded, competition is encour-

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 53 Proposition 106 aged, Independent voters are treated equally, the effects of gerrymandered, “safe” districts are neutralized and voter choice is maximized. I’ve been a registered Repub- lican most of my life, having changed parties at the request of Barry Goldwater when he first ran for national office and I say let’s open up Arizona politics and take back our government from the special interests. I urge you to vote “YES” to open primary elections. Elisabeth Ruffner A Registered Republican Prescott ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 106 Under Arizona’s current closed primary election system, more than 300,000 voters who, like me, have declined to state a party preference are not allowed to vote for any candidates in a primary election. It is true, even though those candidates will end up representing those of us who are not allowed to participate. It is frustrating to be a member of the world’s greatest democracy but live in a state where I am not even given a voice or a choice in primary elections. It’s time Arizona joined 26 other states who offer more voters more choices through some form of open primary election system. Closed primaries create a political climate where unfair and dishonest campaign practices can thrive. Vote “yes” to open primary elections and bring fairness to Ari- zona politics. Karen Peters Longtime Registered Independent Mesa ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 106 The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association believes the most important reason to support open primaries is because it gives voters a real choice and a real voice for a change. Arizona’s present closed primary is one of the most restrictive in the country. A closed system gives unfair influence over the election process to party bosses and activist party factions allowing small blocks of hard-line voters to determine the out- come of many elections. The closed system provides ample opportunity to manipulate an election. It also encourages political dirty tricks such as partisan redistricting. Open primaries will increase voter turnout because candidates will be forced to focus on issues not partisanship. It will give independent voters – currently excluded – the right to participate with everyone else.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 54 Proposition 106

The Phoenix law Enforcement Association urges you to vote “yes” and change Ari- zona government for the better. Terry Sills President Phoenix Law Enforcement Association Phoenix Paid for by Open Primary Elections Now Coalition; Grant Woods & Paul Johnson, Co-Chairmen ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 106 A “YES” vote to open primary elections will empower women to run for and win public elective office. Under the current closed primary system, primary elections are determined by less than 6% of the population. Because only party members can vote in closed primary elections, the nominees of each party are often chosen by an elite group of voters from their party, in order to represent the extreme platform positions of that party, rather than the more moderate views of the population as a whole. These party selected candidates are often financed by their party or a special interest group in the general election. This “closed system”, run by a very few party loyalists and special interest groups, has discouraged women and other moderates from running for elected office. As a result, women who could win in a general election, never get on the general election ballot, because they cannot win their party’s nomination. A totally open primary system will give women a more level playing field. In fact, Washington State, where open primaries have been conducted for over 50 years, has the highest percentage of women in the legislature of any state. Women candidates are more likely to run knowing that they will be judged on their qualifications and views – not on their ties to the party leadership and special interests. It’s only fair since elected officials should reflect the views of and be accountable to all of the voters, not just the leadership of a particular political party. An open primary will allow women a fair chance at being elected by appealing to the voters in general, rather than to party loyalists and special interests. Lucia Fakonas Howard Attorney at Law Phoenix Paid for by Open Primary Elections Now Coalition; Grant Woods & Paul Johnson, Co-Chairmen ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 106 Proposition 106, is the Wealthy Politician Act or WAPPA. 106 will require our elected leaders to raise more campaign funds to communicate with a broader spec- trum of the electorate. 106 leads us in the opposite direction of true campaign reform, and doesn’t deserve your support. Proposition 106 will force candidates to raise more campaign funds, because they will have to communicate with more voters. Under our current Primary system Republican and or a Democratic candidate mails their election materials to a list of

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 55 Proposition 106 similarly identified partisan voters. Under 106, whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican candidate you will have to mail your material to all registered voters thereby doubling the cost of your campaign. 106 actually empowers special interests that are capable of raising enormous amounts of campaign funds which enable a candidate to communicate with a larger portion of the electorate. 106 is bad reform and doesn’t deserve your support. Mike Hellon Chairman, Arizona Republican Party Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 106 Proposition 106 is extreme, unfair and unnecessary. It will double the cost of elections and make it harder for all but the very rich to run for office. It deserves to be defeated. Proposition 106 is extreme because it will destroy Arizona’s system for selecting candidates for nomination. Under Proposition 106 our existing primary election would be replaced by what would be in essence an additional general election. Forcing candidates to run in two general elections will increase the cost of elections dramatically and make it harder, not easier, for regular people to run for office. Proposition 106 is also unfair. People registered as Independents or in minor parties should be able to participate in the primary election process in a meaningful way. Proposition 103 achieves this goal by allowing these people to cast votes in either Democrat, Republican, Reform or Libertarian primaries. By contrast, Proposition 106 destroys the existing primary elections by allowing Democrats to vote in Repub- lican primaries and Republicans to vote in Democrat primaries. This is unfair and will corrupt the process resulting in the nomination of the weakest, not the strongest and best candidates. Finally, Proposition 106 is unnecessary. The problem with the current primary system is that Independents are not allowed to vote. Proposition 103 solves this by allowing Independents and those registered in other minor parties to vote in the Dem- ocrat, Republican, Reform or Libertarian primary. Voters who want a fair system that does not double the cost of elections should vote “No” on Proposition 106 and “Yes” on Proposition 103. John Shadegg, Congressman Phoenix Paid for by John Shadegg for Congress ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 106 Argument AGAINST Proposition 106 Arizona had open primaries once, and it was a very good system -- not the shameful imitation you have before you here. But politicians abandoned that system in favor of the one we have today, for one simple reason: they wanted taxpayers -- you -- to pay for their primary elections.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 56 Proposition 106

Libertarians are against taxpayer-funded party primaries, as were the authors of the Arizona Constitution. Parties should choose their candidates at their own expense and by their own methods, ensuring that their party philosophies are truly represented by the individuals they choose. Only then should the state-funded nominating election give voters the opportunity to choose from among all candidates of all parties, sending on only the top vote-earners (of whatever parties) to compete in the general election. The “open primary” scheme proposed here would leave us with the same sad situation we now face: one candidate from each qualifying party will be on the ballot for each office, and many voters will abandon the independent or third-party candidates they’d like to support, feeling that they have to vote for the least objectionable major party candidate. The only thing gained here would be the chance for political parties to try undermining their opposition. How? By voting in large numbers for the weakest candidates in an opposing party’s primary, for starters. Now, there’s a sad picture: only lackluster candidates in the general election because the cream of the crop has been defeated in their own primaries by outsiders! A real open primary system would guarantee that only the candidates genuinely favored by the voters can be on the general election ballot. What a concept! Vote “NO.” Let's wait for real open primary reform. For more information about this position, or any other ballot item, please visit http://www.lpaz.org. John Buttrick Rex Warner Ray Price Libertarian Candidate for Libertarian Candidate for Libertarian Candidate for State Representative, U.S. Senator Treasurer District 25 Goodyear Scottsdale Phoenix Gary Fallon Tom Rawles Robert Anderson Libertarian Candidate for Libertarian Candidate for Libertarian Candidate for State Senator, District 24 Governor U.S. Congress, District 6 Phoenix Mesa Phoenix Kent Van Cleave Fran Van Cleave Ernest Hancock Libertarian Candidate for Chairman Chairman State Senator, District 25 Arizona Libertarian Party Maricopa County Phoenix Phoenix Libertarian Party Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 106 Proposition 106 The Maricopa County Democratic Committee (Democrats!) urges you to vote “NO” on Proposition 106. We are your neighbors: the grass roots workers who obtain signatures for candidates, seek first-time office, and staff the polls. We believe that Inde- pendents and non-partisan voters should be permitted to vote at primary election time. We support the true “open” primary system Proposition 103 because it will increase voter turnout and interest.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 57 Proposition 106

Actually, Proposition 106 is the controversial “blanket” primary system, adopted in very few states. A “blanket” primary created chaos in California’s 1998 primary race for governor. Instead of reducing special interest politics, the need for money and the influence of mass media, the blanket primary brought out these elements at their worst as candidates sought voters from opposing parties. With Proposition 106, cross-over voting would become common, particularly for voters of one party whose candidate in the primary was uncontested. The better, “true” open primary system is Proposition 103, which would not permit registered party voters to ignore their own choice of party. In these days of voter apathy, the reality is that the Democratic and Republican parties are the chief generators of political interest particularly for races which are not well publicized. A blanket primary system will damage a two-party system which has existed for over 200 years. If a “blanket” primary system is adopted, voters will be the losers because political debate will be stifled. Candidates will hesitate to express strong positions on issues. The two political parties will become more difficult to distinguish and voters will have less choice. Candidates of great personal wealth will enjoy the largest advantage because they can better afford to appeal to the many new eligible primary voters. Vote “No” on blanket primary Proposition 106; Yes on true “open” primaries; Propo- sition 103. David Eagle, Chairman Maricopa County Democratic Committee Phoenix

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 58 Proposition 106 BALLOT FORMAT PROPOSITION 106 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY INITIATIVE PETITION OFFICIAL TITLE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA: AMENDING ARTICLE VII, SECTION 10, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, RELATING TO PRIMARY ELECTIONS. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE AMENDING ARIZONA CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW EVERY REGIS- TERED VOTER, REGARDLESS OF THE VOTER’S POLITICAL AFFILIA- TION, TO VOTE IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS FOR ANY CANDIDATE OF THE VOTER’S CHOICE FOR EACH OFFICE AND WITHOUT A DECLA- RATION OF ALLEGIANCE TO A POLITICAL PARTY. THE PROPOSITION DOES NOT APPLY TO ELECTION OF OFFICERS OF A POLITICAL PARTY.

PROPOSITION 106 A “yes” vote shall have the effect of allowing every registered voter to vote for any candidate of the voter’s choice for each YES office, regardless of the voter’s political affiliation and without a declaration of allegiance to a political party; does not apply to election of officers of a political party. A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current Primary Election system, permitting only those voters who are registered NO in a recognized political party to vote for candidates on the ballot of the political party in which they are registered.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 59 Proposition 200 PROPOSITION 200 OFFICIAL TITLE AN INITIATIVE MEASURE CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS ACT TEXT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT Be it enacted by the voters of the State of Arizona: Section 1. In title 16, chapter 6, add the following article: ARTICLE 2. CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS ACT 16-940. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS. A. THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA DECLARE OUR INTENT TO CRE- ATE A CLEAN ELECTIONS SYSTEM THAT WILL IMPROVE THE INTEGRITY OF ARIZONA STATE GOVERNMENT BY DIMINISHING THE INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL-INTEREST MONEY, WILL ENCOURAGE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS, AND WILL PROMOTE FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER THE U.S. AND ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONS. CAMPAIGNS WILL BECOME MORE ISSUE-ORI- ENTED AND LESS NEGATIVE BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO NEED TO CHALLENGE THE SOURCES OF CAMPAIGN MONEY. B. THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA FIND THAT OUR CURRENT ELEC- TION-FINANCING SYSTEM: 1. ALLOWS ARIZONA ELECTED OFFICIALS TO ACCEPT LARGE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIVATE INTERESTS OVER WHICH THEY HAVE GOVERNMENTAL JURISDICTION; 2. GIVES INCUMBENTS AN UNHEALTHY ADVANTAGE OVER CHALLENGERS; 3. HINDERS COMMUNICATION TO VOTERS BY MANY QUALIFIED CANDIDATES; 4. EFFECTIVELY SUPPRESSES THE VOICES AND INFLU- ENCE OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF ARIZONA CITIZENS IN FAVOR OF A SMALL NUMBER OF WEALTHY SPECIAL INTERESTS; 5. UNDERMINES PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS; 6. COSTS AVERAGE TAXPAYERS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THE FORM OF SUBSIDIES AND SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS; 7. DRIVES UP THE COST OF RUNNING FOR STATE OFFICE, DISCOURAGING OTHERWISE QUALIFIED CANDIDATES WHO LACK PERSONAL WEALTH OR ACCESS TO SPECIAL-INTEREST FUNDING; AND 8. REQUIRES THAT ELECTED OFFICIALS SPEND TOO MUCH OF THEIR TIME RAISING FUNDS RATHER THAN REPRE- SENTING THE PUBLIC.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 60 Proposition 200

16-941. LIMITS ON SPENDING AND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR POLIT- ICAL CAMPAIGNS. A. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, A PAR- TICIPATING CANDIDATE: 1. SHALL NOT ACCEPT ANY CONTRIBUTIONS, OTHER THAN A LIMITED NUMBER OF FIVE-DOLLAR QUALIFYING CON- TRIBUTIONS AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 16-946 AND EARLY CON- TRIBUTIONS AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 16-945, EXCEPT IN THE EMERGENCY SITUATION SPECIFIED IN SECTION 16-954, SUB- SECTION F. 2. SHALL NOT MAKE EXPENDITURES OF MORE THAN A TOTAL OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS OF THE CANDIDATE’S PER- SONAL MONIES FOR A CANDIDATE FOR LEGISLATURE OR MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR A CANDIDATE FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE. 3. SHALL NOT MAKE EXPENDITURES IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION PERIOD IN EXCESS OF THE ADJUSTED PRIMARY ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT. 4. SHALL NOT MAKE EXPENDITURES IN THE GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD IN EXCESS OF THE ADJUSTED GENERAL ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT. 5. SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION 16-948 REGARDING CAMPAIGN ACCOUNTS AND SECTION 16-953 REGARDING RETURNING UNUSED MONIES TO THE CITIZENS CLEAN ELEC- TION FUND DESCRIBED IN THIS ARTICLE. B. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, A NON- PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE: 1. SHALL NOT ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS IN EXCESS OF AN AMOUNT THAT IS TWENTY PERCENT LESS THAN THE LIM- ITS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 16-905, SUBSECTIONS A THROUGH G, AS ADJUSTED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 16-905, SUBSECTION J. ANY VIOLATION OF THIS PARA- GRAPH SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE CIVIL PENALTIES AND PRO- CEDURES SET FORTH IN SECTION 16-905, SUBSECTIONS L THROUGH P AND SECTION 16-924. 2. SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION 16-958 REGARDING REPORTING, INCLUDING FILING REPORTS WITH THE SECRE- TARY OF STATE INDICATING WHENEVER (A) EXPENDITURES OTHER THAN INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES ON BEHALF OF THE CANDIDATE, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE ELECTION CYCLE TO ANY DATE UP TO PRIMARY ELECTION DAY, EXCEED SEVENTY PERCENT OF THE ORIGINAL PRIMARY ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT APPLICABLE TO A PARTICIPATING CANDI- DATE SEEKING THE SAME OFFICE, OR (B) CONTRIBUTIONS TO A CANDIDATE, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE ELECTION CYCLE TO ANY DATE DURING THE GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD, LESS EXPENDITURES MADE FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE ELECTION CYCLE THROUGH PRIMARY ELECTION DAY,

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 61 Proposition 200

EXCEED SEVENTY PERCENT OF THE ORIGINAL GENERAL ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT APPLICABLE TO A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE SEEKING THE SAME OFFICE. C. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, A CAN- DIDATE, WHETHER PARTICIPATING OR NONPARTICIPATING: 1. IF AND ONLY IF SPECIFIED IN A WRITTEN AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE CANDIDATE AND ONE OR MORE OPPOSING CANDIDATES AND FILED WITH THE CITIZENS CLEAN ELEC- TIONS COMMISSION, SHALL NOT MAKE ANY EXPENDITURE IN THE PRIMARY OR GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD EXCEEDING AN AGREED-UPON AMOUNT LOWER THAN SPENDING LIMITS OTH- ERWISE APPLICABLE BY STATUTE. 2. SHALL CONTINUE TO BE BOUND BY ALL OTHER APPLICABLE ELECTION AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE STATUTES AND RULES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE PROVISIONS IN EXPRESS OR CLEAR CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE. D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, ANY PERSON WHO MAKES INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES RELATED TO A PARTICULAR OFFICE CUMULATIVELY EXCEEDING FIVE HUN- DRED DOLLARS IN AN ELECTION CYCLE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ANY EXPENDITURE LISTED IN SECTION 16-920 AND ANY INDEPEN- DENT EXPENDITURE BY AN ORGANIZATION ARISING FROM A COM- MUNICATION DIRECTLY TO THE ORGANIZATION’S MEMBERS, SHAREHOLDERS, EMPLOYEES, AFFILIATED PERSONS, AND SUB- SCRIBERS, SHALL FILE REPORTS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 16-958 SO INDICATING, IDENTIFY- ING THE OFFICE AND THE CANDIDATE OR GROUP OF CANDIDATES WHOSE ELECTION OR DEFEAT IS BEING ADVOCATED, AND STATING WHETHER THE PERSON IS ADVOCATING ELECTION OR ADVOCAT- ING DEFEAT. 16-942. CIVIL PENALTIES AND FORFEITURE OF OFFICE. A. THE CIVIL PENALTY FOR A VIOLATION OF ANY CONTRIBU- TION OR EXPENDITURE LIMIT IN SECTION 16-941 BY OR ON BEHALF OF A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE SHALL BE TEN TIMES THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE EXPENDITURES OR CONTRIBUTIONS EXCEED THE APPLICABLE LIMIT. B. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTIES IMPOSED BY LAW, THE CIVIL PENALTY FOR A VIOLATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF ANY CANDIDATE OF ANY REPORTING REQUIREMENT IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER DAY FOR CANDI- DATES FOR THE LEGISLATURE AND THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER DAY FOR CANDIDATES FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE. THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE DOUBLED IF THE AMOUNT NOT REPORTED FOR A PARTICULAR ELECTION CYCLE EXCEEDS TEN PERCENT OF THE ADJUSTED PRIMARY OR GENERAL ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT. NO PENALTY IMPOSED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION SHALL EXCEED TWICE THE AMOUNT OF EXPEN-

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 62 Proposition 200

DITURES OR CONTRIBUTIONS NOT REPORTED. THE CANDIDATE AND THE CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PENALTY IMPOSED PUR- SUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION. C. ANY CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT FILED INDICATING A VIOLATION OF SECTION 16-941, SUBSECTIONS A OR B OR SECTION 16-941, SUBSECTION C, PARAGRAPH 1 INVOLVING AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF TEN PERCENT OF THE SUM OF THE ADJUSTED PRIMARY ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT AND THE ADJUSTED GENERAL ELEC- TION SPENDING LIMIT FOR A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE SHALL RESULT IN DISQUALIFICATION OF A CANDIDATE OR FORFEITURE OF OFFICE. D. ANY PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE ADJUDGED TO HAVE COMMITTED A KNOWING VIOLATION OF SECTION 16-941, SUBSEC- TION A OR SUBSECTION C, PARAGRAPH 1 SHALL REPAY FROM THE CANDIDATE’S PERSONAL MONIES TO THE FUND ALL MONIES EXPENDED FROM THE CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT AND SHALL TURN OVER THE CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT TO THE FUND. E. ALL CIVIL PENALTIES COLLECTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE DEPOSITED INTO THE FUND. 16-943. CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES. A. A CANDIDATE, OR ANY OTHER PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF A CANDIDATE, WHO KNOWINGLY VIOLATES SECTION 16-941 IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR. B. ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY PAYS ANY THING OF VALUE OR ANY COMPENSATION FOR A QUALIFYING CONTRIBU- TION AS DEFINED IN SECTION 16-946 IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1 MIS- DEMEANOR. C. ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY PROVIDES FALSE OR INCOMPLETE INFORMATION ON A REPORT FILED UNDER SECTION 16-958 IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR. 16-944. FEES IMPOSED ON LOBBYISTS. BEGINNING ON JANUARY 1, 1999, AN ANNUAL FEE IS IMPOSED ON ALL REGISTERED LOBBYISTS REPRESENTING (A) ONE OR MORE PERSONS IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMERCIAL OR FOR-PROFIT ACTIVITY EXCEPT PUBLIC BODIES OR (B) A NON-PROFIT ENTITY PREDOMINATELY COMPOSED OF OR ACTING ON BEHALF OF A TRADE ASSOCIATION OR OTHER GROUPING OF COMMERCIAL OR FOR-PROFIT ENTITIES. THE FEE SHALL BE IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ANNUALLY PER LOBBYIST AND SHALL BE COLLECTED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND TRANSMITTED TO THE STATE TREASURER FOR DEPOSIT INTO THE FUND. 16-945. LIMITS ON EARLY CONTRIBUTIONS. A. A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE MAY ACCEPT EARLY CON- TRIBUTIONS ONLY FROM INDIVIDUALS AND ONLY DURING THE EXPLORATORY PERIOD AND THE QUALIFYING PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING LIMITATIONS:

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 63 Proposition 200

1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, NO CONTRIBUTOR SHALL GIVE, AND NO PARTICIPATING CANDI- DATE SHALL ACCEPT, CONTRIBUTIONS FROM A CONTRIBUTOR EXCEEDING ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS DURING AN ELECTION CYCLE. 2. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, EARLY CONTRIBUTIONS TO A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE FROM ALL SOURCES FOR AN ELECTION CYCLE SHALL NOT EXCEED, FOR A CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR, FORTY THOU- SAND DOLLARS OR, FOR OTHER CANDIDATES, TEN PERCENT OF THE SUM OF THE ORIGINAL PRIMARY ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT AND THE ORIGINAL GENERAL ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT. 3. QUALIFYING CONTRIBUTIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 16-946 SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE LIMITS IN THIS SUBSECTION HAVE BEEN EXCEEDED. B. EARLY CONTRIBUTIONS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE CANDIDATE’S PERSONAL MONIES SPECI- FIED IN SECTION 16-941, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 2 MAY BE SPENT ONLY DURING THE EXPLORATORY PERIOD AND THE QUALI- FYING PERIOD. ANY EARLY CONTRIBUTIONS NOT SPENT BY THE END OF THE QUALIFYING PERIOD SHALL BE PAID TO THE FUND. C. IF A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE HAS A DEBT FROM AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN THIS STATE DURING A PREVIOUS ELEC- TION CYCLE IN WHICH THE CANDIDATE WAS NOT A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE, THEN, DURING THE EXPLORATORY PERIOD ONLY, THE CANDIDATE MAY ACCEPT, IN ADDITION TO EARLY CONTRIBUTIONS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION, CONTRIBUTIONS SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS IN SECTION 16-941, SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH 1, OR MAY EXCEED THE LIMIT ON PERSONAL MONIES IN SECTION 16-941, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 2, PROVIDED THAT SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS AND MONIES ARE USED SOLELY TO RETIRE SUCH DEBT. 16-946. QUALIFYING CONTRIBUTIONS. A. DURING THE QUALIFYING PERIOD, A PARTICIPATING CAN- DIDATE MAY COLLECT QUALIFYING CONTRIBUTIONS, WHICH SHALL BE PAID TO THE FUND. B. TO QUALIFY AS A “QUALIFYING CONTRIBUTION,” A CON- TRIBUTION MUST BE: 1. MADE BY A QUALIFIED ELECTOR AS DEFINED IN SEC- TION 16-121, WHO AT THE TIME OF THE CONTRIBUTION IS REG- ISTERED IN THE ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF THE OFFICE THE CANDIDATE IS SEEKING AND WHO HAS NOT GIVEN ANOTHER QUALIFYING CONTRIBUTION TO THAT CANDIDATE DURING THAT ELECTION CYCLE; 2. MADE BY A PERSON WHO IS NOT GIVEN ANYTHING OF VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE QUALIFYING CONTRIBUTION; 3. IN THE SUM OF FIVE DOLLARS, EXACTLY;

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 64 Proposition 200

4. RECEIVED UNSOLICITED DURING THE QUALIFYING PERIOD OR SOLICITED DURING THE QUALIFYING PERIOD BY A PERSON WHO IS NOT EMPLOYED OR RETAINED BY THE CANDI- DATE AND WHO IS NOT COMPENSATED TO COLLECT CONTRI- BUTIONS BY THE CANDIDATE OR ON BEHALF OF THE CANDIDATE; 5. IF MADE BY CHECK OR MONEY ORDER, MADE PAY- ABLE TO THE CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, OR IF IN CASH, DEPOSITED IN THE CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN COMMIT- TEE’S ACCOUNT; AND 6. ACCOMPANIED BY A THREE-PART REPORTING SLIP THAT INCLUDES THE PRINTED NAME, REGISTRATION ADDRESS, AND SIGNATURE OF THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE NAME OF THE CANDIDATE FOR WHOM THE CONTRIBUTION IS MADE, THE DATE, AND THE PRINTED NAME AND SIGNATURE OF THE SOLICITOR. C. A COPY OF THE REPORTING SLIP SHALL BE GIVEN AS A RECEIPT TO THE CONTRIBUTOR, AND ANOTHER COPY SHALL BE RETAINED BY THE CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE. DELIV- ERY OF AN ORIGINAL REPORTING SLIP TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL EXCUSE THE CANDIDATE FROM DISCLOSURE OF THESE CONTRIBUTIONS ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF THIS CHAPTER. 16-947. CERTIFICATION AS A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE. A. A CANDIDATE WHO WISHES TO BE CERTIFIED AS A PARTIC- IPATING CANDIDATE SHALL, BEFORE THE END OF THE QUALIFYING PERIOD, FILE AN APPLICATION WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, IN A FORM SPECIFIED BY THE CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS COMMIS- SION. B. THE APPLICATION SHALL IDENTIFY THE CANDIDATE, THE OFFICE THAT THE CANDIDATE PLANS TO SEEK, AND THE CANDI- DATE’S PARTY, IF ANY, AND SHALL CONTAIN THE CANDIDATE’S SIGNATURE, UNDER OATH, CERTIFYING THAT: 1. THE CANDIDATE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE RESTRIC- TIONS OF SECTION 16-941, SUBSECTION A DURING THE ELEC- TION CYCLE TO DATE. 2. THE CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE AND EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE HAVE FILED ALL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF THIS CHAPTER DURING THE ELECTION CYCLE TO DATE AND THAT THEY ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE. 3. THE CANDIDATE WILL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRE- MENTS OF SECTION 16-941, SUBSECTION A DURING THE REMAINDER OF THE ELECTION CYCLE AND, SPECIFICALLY, WILL NOT ACCEPT PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS. C. THE COMMISSION SHALL ACT ON THE APPLICATION WITHIN ONE WEEK. UNLESS, WITHIN THAT TIME, THE COMMISSION DENIES AN APPLICATION AND PROVIDES WRITTEN REASONS THAT

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 65 Proposition 200

ALL OR PART OF A CERTIFICATION IN SUBSECTION B OF THIS SEC- TION IS INCOMPLETE OR UNTRUE, THE CANDIDATE SHALL BE CER- TIFIED AS A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE. IF THE COMMISSION DENIES AN APPLICATION FOR FAILURE TO FILE ALL COMPLETE AND ACCURATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS OR FAILURE TO MAKE THE CERTIFICATION IN SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH 3 OF THIS SECTION, THE CANDIDATE MAY REAPPLY WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION BY FILING COMPLETE AND ACCURATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS AND ANOTHER SWORN CERTIFICATION. 16-948. CONTROLS ON PARTICIPATING CANDIDATES’ CAMPAIGN ACCOUNTS. A. A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE SHALL CONDUCT ALL FINANCIAL ACTIVITY THROUGH A SINGLE CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT OF THE CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE. A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE SHALL NOT MAKE ANY DEPOSITS INTO THE CAM- PAIGN ACCOUNT OTHER THAN THOSE PERMITTED UNDER SEC- TIONS 16-945 OR 16-946. B. A CANDIDATE MAY DESIGNATE OTHER PERSONS WITH AUTHORITY TO WITHDRAW FUNDS FROM THE CANDIDATE’S CAM- PAIGN ACCOUNT. THE CANDIDATE AND ANY PERSON SO DESIG- NATED SHALL SIGN A JOINT STATEMENT UNDER OATH PROMISING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS TITLE. C. THE CANDIDATE OR A PERSON AUTHORIZED UNDER SUB- SECTION B OF THIS SECTION SHALL PAY MONIES FROM A PARTICI- PATING CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT DIRECTLY TO THE PERSON PROVIDING GOODS OR SERVICES TO THE CAMPAIGN AND SHALL IDENTIFY, ON A REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 1 OF THIS CHAPTER, THE FULL NAME AND STREET ADDRESS OF THE PERSON AND THE NATURE OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES AND COMPENSATION FOR WHICH PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE. NOT- WITHSTANDING THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE, A CAMPAIGN COMMIT- TEE MAY ESTABLISH ONE OR MORE PETTY CASH ACCOUNTS, WHICH IN AGGREGATE SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE THOUSAND DOL- LARS AT ANY TIME. NO SINGLE EXPENDITURE SHALL BE MADE FROM A PETTY CASH ACCOUNT EXCEEDING ONE HUNDRED DOL- LARS. D. MONIES IN A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT SHALL NOT BE USED TO PAY FINES OR CIVIL PENALTIES, FOR COSTS OR LEGAL FEES RELATED TO REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE COMMISSION, OR FOR DEFENSE OF ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTION UNDER THIS CHAPTER. NOTHING IN THIS SUBSECTION SHALL PREVENT A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE FROM HAVING A LEGAL DEFENSE FUND. 16-949. CAPS ON SPENDING FROM CITIZENS CLEAN ELEC- TIONS FUND. A. THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT SPEND, ON ALL COSTS INCURRED UNDER THIS ARTICLE DURING A PARTICULAR CALEN-

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 66 Proposition 200

DAR YEAR, MORE THAN FIVE DOLLARS TIMES THE NUMBER OF ARIZONA RESIDENT PERSONAL INCOME TAX RETURNS FILED DUR- ING THE PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR. TAX REDUCTIONS AND TAX CREDITS AWARDED TO TAXPAYERS PURSUANT TO SECTION 16-954, SUBSECTIONS A AND B SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COSTS INCURRED UNDER THIS ARTICLE FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION. THE COMMISSION MAY EXCEED THIS LIMIT DURING A CALENDAR YEAR, PROVIDED THAT IT IS OFFSET BY AN EQUAL REDUCTION OF THE LIMIT DURING ANOTHER CALENDAR YEAR DURING THE SAME FOUR-YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY 1 IMMEDIATELY AFTER A GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION. B. THE COMMISSION MAY USE UP TO TEN PERCENT OF THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION FOR REA- SONABLE AND NECESSARY EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT, INCLUDING THE ACTIVITIES SPECIFIED IN SEC- TION 16-956, SUBSECTIONS B, C, AND D. ANY PORTION OF THE TEN PERCENT NOT USED FOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL REMAIN IN THE FUND. C. THE COMMISSION SHALL APPLY TEN PERCENT OF THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION FOR REA- SONABLE AND NECESSARY EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH VOTER EDUCATION, INCLUDING THE ACTIVITIES SPECIFIED IN SECTION 16-956, SUBSECTION A. D. THE STATE TREASURER SHALL ADMINISTER A CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTION FUND FROM WHICH COSTS INCURRED UNDER THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE PAID. THE AUDITOR GENERAL SHALL REVIEW THE MONIES IN, PAYMENTS INTO, AND EXPENDITURES FROM THE FUND NO LESS OFTEN THAN EVERY FOUR YEARS. 16-950. QUALIFICATION FOR CLEAN CAMPAIGN FUNDING. A. A CANDIDATE WHO HAS MADE AN APPLICATION FOR CER- TIFICATION MAY ALSO APPLY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION B OF THIS SECTION, TO RECEIVE FUNDS FROM THE CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS FUND, INSTEAD OF RECEIVING PRIVATE CON- TRIBUTIONS. B. TO RECEIVE ANY CLEAN CAMPAIGN FUNDING, THE CANDI- DATE MUST PRESENT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE NO LATER THAN ONE WEEK AFTER THE END OF THE QUALIFYING PERIOD A LIST OF NAMES OF PERSONS WHO HAVE MADE QUALIFYING CON- TRIBUTIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 16-946 ON BEHALF OF THE CANDIDATE. THE LIST SHALL BE DIVIDED BY COUNTY. AT THE SAME TIME, THE CANDIDATE MUST TENDER TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE ORIGINAL REPORTING SLIPS IDENTIFIED IN SECTION 16-946, SUBSECTION C FOR PERSONS ON THE LIST AND AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THE QUALIFYING CONTRIBUTIONS COL- LECTED. THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT INTO THE FUND. C. THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL SELECT AT RANDOM A SAMPLE OF FIVE PERCENT OF THE NUMBER OF NON-DUPLICATIVE

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 67 Proposition 200

NAMES ON THE LIST AND FORWARD FACSIMILES OF THE SELECTED REPORTING SLIPS TO THE COUNTY RECORDER FOR THE COUNTIES OF THE ADDRESSES SPECIFIED IN THE SELECTED SLIPS. WITHIN TEN DAYS, THE COUNTY RECORDERS SHALL PROVIDE A REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE IDENTIFYING AS DISQUALIFIED ANY SLIPS THAT ARE UNSIGNED OR UNDATED OR THAT THE RECORDER IS UNABLE TO VERIFY AS MATCHING A PERSON WHO IS REGIS- TERED TO VOTE, ON THE DATE SPECIFIED ON THE SLIP, INSIDE THE ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF THE OFFICE THE CANDIDATE IS SEEKING. THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL MULTIPLY THE NUMBER OF SLIPS NOT DISQUALIFIED BY TWENTY, AND IF THE RESULT IS GREATER THAN ONE HUNDRED AND TEN PERCENT OF THE QUAN- TITY REQUIRED, SHALL APPROVE THE CANDIDATE FOR FUNDS, AND IF THE RESULT IS LESS THAN NINETY PERCENT OF THE QUAN- TITY REQUIRED, SHALL DENY THE APPLICATION FOR FUNDS. OTH- ERWISE, THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL FORWARD FACSIMILES OF ALL OF THE SLIPS TO THE COUNTY RECORDERS FOR VERIFICA- TION, AND THE COUNTY RECORDERS SHALL CHECK ALL SLIPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCESS ABOVE. D. TO QUALIFY FOR CLEAN CAMPAIGN FUNDING, A CANDI- DATE MUST HAVE BEEN APPROVED AS A PARTICIPATING CANDI- DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 16-947 AND HAVE OBTAINED THE FOLLOWING NUMBER OF QUALIFYING CONTRIBUTIONS: 1. FOR A CANDIDATE FOR LEGISLATURE, TWO HUNDRED. 2. FOR CANDIDATE FOR MINE INSPECTOR, FIVE HUN- DRED. 3. FOR A CANDIDATE FOR TREASURER, SUPERINTEN- DENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OR CORPORATION COMMIS- SION, ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED. 4. FOR A CANDIDATE FOR SECRETARY OF STATE OR ATTORNEY GENERAL, TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED. 5. FOR A CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR, FOUR THOUSAND. E. TO QUALIFY FOR CLEAN CAMPAIGN FUNDING, A CANDI- DATE MUST HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION AND EITHER BE AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE OR MEET THE FOLLOW- ING STANDARDS: 1. TO QUALIFY FOR FUNDING FOR A PARTY PRIMARY ELECTION, A CANDIDATE MUST HAVE PROPERLY FILED NOMI- NATING PAPERS AND NOMINATING PETITIONS WITH SIGNA- TURES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3, ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF THIS TITLE IN THE PRIMARY OF A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION ENTI- TLED TO CONTINUED REPRESENTATION ON THE OFFICIAL BAL- LOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 16-804. 2. TO QUALIFY FOR CLEAN CAMPAIGN FUNDING FOR A GENERAL ELECTION, A CANDIDATE MUST BE A PARTY NOMI- NEE OF SUCH A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 68 Proposition 200

16-951. CLEAN CAMPAIGN FUNDING. A. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION PERIOD, THE COMMISSION SHALL PAY FROM THE FUND TO THE CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT OF EACH CANDIDATE WHO QUALIFIES FOR CLEAN CAM- PAIGN FUNDING: 1. FOR A CANDIDATE WHO QUALIFIES FOR CLEAN CAM- PAIGN FUNDING FOR A PARTY PRIMARY ELECTION, AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE ORIGINAL PRIMARY ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT; 2. FOR AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE WHO QUALIFIES FOR CLEAN CAMPAIGN FUNDING, AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO SEV- ENTY PERCENT OF THE SUM OF THE ORIGINAL PRIMARY ELEC- TION SPENDING LIMIT, AND THE ORIGINAL GENERAL ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT; OR 3. FOR A QUALIFIED PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE WHO IS UNOPPOSED FOR AN OFFICE IN THAT CANDIDATE’S PRIMARY, IN THE PRIMARY OF ANY OTHER PARTY, AND BY ANY OPPOS- ING INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE, AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO FIVE DOLLARS TIMES THE NUMBER OF QUALIFYING CONTRIBU- TIONS FOR THAT CANDIDATE CERTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION. B. AT ANY TIME AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY OF AN ELECTION YEAR, ANY CANDIDATE WHO HAS MET THE REQUIRE- MENTS OF SECTION 16-950 MAY SIGN AND CAUSE TO BE FILED A NOMINATION PAPER IN THE FORM SPECIFIED BY SECTION 16-311, SUBSECTION A, WITH A NOMINATING PETITION AND SIGNATURES, INSTEAD OF FILING SUCH PAPERS AFTER THE EARLIEST TIME SET FOR FILING SPECIFIED BY THAT SUBSECTION. UPON SUCH FILING AND VERIFICATION OF THE SIGNATURES, THE COMMISSION SHALL PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION IMMEDIATELY, RATHER THAN WAITING FOR THE BEGINNING OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION PERIOD. C. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD, THE COMMISSION SHALL PAY FROM THE FUND TO THE CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT OF EACH CANDIDATE WHO QUALIFIES FOR CLEAN CAM- PAIGN FUNDING FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION, EXCEPT THOSE CANDIDATES IDENTIFIED IN SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPHS 2 OR 3 OR SUBSECTION D OF THIS SECTION, AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE ORIGINAL GENERAL ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT. D. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD, THE COMMISSION SHALL PAY FROM THE FUND TO THE CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT OF A QUALIFIED PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED FUNDS PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 3 OF THIS SECTION AND WHO IS UNOPPOSED BY ANY OTHER PARTY NOMINEE OR ANY OPPOSING INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO FIVE DOLLARS TIMES THE NUMBER OF QUALI- FYING CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THAT CANDIDATE CERTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 69 Proposition 200

E. THE SPECIAL ORIGINAL GENERAL ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT, FOR A CANDIDATE WHO HAS RECEIVED FUNDS PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPHS 2 OR 3 OR SUBSECTION D OF THIS SECTION, SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT THAT THE COMMIS- SION IS OBLIGATED TO PAY TO THAT CANDIDATE. 16-952. EQUAL FUNDING OF CANDIDATES. A. WHENEVER DURING A PRIMARY ELECTION PERIOD A REPORT IS FILED, OR OTHER INFORMATION COMES TO THE ATTEN- TION OF THE COMMISSION, INDICATING THAT A NONPARTICIPAT- ING CANDIDATE WHO IS NOT UNOPPOSED IN THAT PRIMARY HAS MADE EXPENDITURES DURING THE ELECTION CYCLE TO DATE EXCEEDING THE ORIGINAL PRIMARY ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT, INCLUDING ANY PREVIOUS ADJUSTMENTS, THE COMMISSION SHALL IMMEDIATELY PAY FROM THE FUND TO THE CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT OF ANY PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE IN THE SAME PARTY PRIMARY AS THE NONPARTICIPATING CANDIDATE AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ANY EXCESS OF THE REPORTED AMOUNT OVER THE PRIMARY ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT, AS PREVIOUSLY ADJUSTED, AND THE PRIMARY ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT FOR ALL SUCH PAR- TICIPATING CANDIDATES SHALL BE ADJUSTED BY INCREASING IT BY THE AMOUNT THAT THE COMMISSION IS OBLIGATED TO PAY TO A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE. B. WHENEVER DURING A GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD A REPORT HAS BEEN FILED, OR OTHER INFORMATION COMES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMISSION, INDICATING THAT THE AMOUNT A NONPARTICIPATING CANDIDATE WHO IS NOT UNOPPOSED HAS RECEIVED IN CONTRIBUTIONS DURING THE ELECTION CYCLE TO DATE LESS THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURES THE NONPARTICIPAT- ING CANDIDATE MADE THROUGH THE END OF THE PRIMARY ELEC- TION PERIOD EXCEEDS THE ORIGINAL GENERAL ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT, INCLUDING ANY PREVIOUS ADJUSTMENTS, THE COMMISSION SHALL IMMEDIATELY PAY FROM THE FUND TO THE CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT OF ANY PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE QUALI- FIED FOR THE BALLOT AND SEEKING THE SAME OFFICE AS THE NONPARTICIPATING CANDIDATE AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ANY EXCESS OF THE REPORTED DIFFERENCE OVER THE GENERAL ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT, AS PREVIOUSLY ADJUSTED, AND THE GENERAL ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT FOR ALL SUCH PARTICIPAT- ING CANDIDATES SHALL BE ADJUSTED BY INCREASING IT BY THE AMOUNT THAT THE COMMISSION IS OBLIGATED TO PAY TO A PAR- TICIPATING CANDIDATE. C. FOR PURPOSES OF SUBSECTIONS A AND B OF THIS SEC- TION THE FOLLOWING EXPENDITURES REPORTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE TREATED AS FOLLOWS: 1. INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES AGAINST A PARTICI- PATING CANDIDATE SHALL BE TREATED AS EXPENDITURES OF EACH OPPOSING CANDIDATE, FOR PURPOSE OF SUBSECTION A

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 70 Proposition 200

OF THIS SECTION, OR CONTRIBUTIONS TO EACH OPPOSING CANDIDATE, OR PURPOSE OF SUBSECTION B OF THIS SECTION. 2. INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES IN FAVOR OF ONE OR MORE NONPARTICIPATING OPPONENTS OF A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE SHALL BE TREATED AS EXPENDITURES OF THOSE NONPARTICIPATING CANDIDATES, FOR PURPOSE OF SUBSEC- TION A OF THIS SECTION, OR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THOSE NON- PARTICIPATING CANDIDATES, FOR PURPOSE OF SUBSECTION B OF THIS SECTION. 3. INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES IN FAVOR OF A PARTIC- IPATING CANDIDATE SHALL BE TREATED, FOR EVERY OPPOS- ING PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE, AS THOUGH THE INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES WERE AN EXPENDITURE OF A NONPARTICIPATING OPPONENT, FOR PURPOSE OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION, OR A CONTRIBUTION TO A NONPARTICI- PATING OPPONENT, FOR PURPOSE OF SUBSECTION B OF THIS SECTION. 4. EXPENDITURES MADE DURING THE PRIMARY ELEC- TION PERIOD BY OR ON BEHALF OF AN INDEPENDENT CANDI- DATE OR A NONPARTICIPATING CANDIDATE WHO IS UNOPPOSED IN A PARTY PRIMARY, SHALL BE TREATED AS THOUGH MADE DURING THE GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD, AND EQUALIZING FUNDS PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION B OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE PAID AT THE START OF THE GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD. 5. EXPENDITURES MADE BEFORE THE GENERAL ELEC- TION PERIOD THAT CONSIST OF A CONTRACT, PROMISE, OR AGREEMENT TO MAKE AN EXPENDITURE DURING THE GEN- ERAL ELECTION PERIOD RESULTING IN AN EXTENSION OF CREDIT SHALL BE TREATED AS THOUGH MADE DURING THE GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD, AND EQUALIZING FUNDS PURSU- ANT TO SUBSECTION B OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE PAID AT THE START OF THE GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD. 6. EXPENDITURES FOR OR AGAINST A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE PROMOTING OR OPPOSING MORE THAN ONE CAN- DIDATE WHO ARE NOT RUNNING FOR THE SAME OFFICE SHALL BE ALLOCATED BY THE COMMISSION AMONG CANDIDATES FOR DIFFERENT OFFICES BASED ON THE RELATIVE SIZE OR LENGTH AND RELATIVE PROMINENCE OF THE REFERENCE TO CANDIDATES FOR DIFFERENT OFFICES. D. UPON APPLYING FOR CITIZEN FUNDING PURSUANT TO SECTION 16-950, A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE FOR LEGISLATURE IN A ONE-PARTY-DOMINANT LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT WHO IS QUAL- IFIED FOR CLEAN CAMPAIGN FUNDING FOR THE PARTY PRIMARY ELECTION OF THE DOMINANT PARTY MAY CHOOSE TO REALLO- CATE A PORTION OF FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD TO THE PRIMARY ELECTION PERIOD. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION PERIOD, THE COMMISSION SHALL PAY FROM

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 71 Proposition 200

THE FUND TO THE CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT OF A PARTICIPATING CAN- DIDATE WHO MAKES THIS CHOICE AN EXTRA AMOUNT EQUAL TO FIFTY PERCENT OF THE ORIGINAL PRIMARY ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT, AND THE ORIGINAL PRIMARY ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT FOR THE CANDIDATE WHO MAKES THIS CHOICE SHALL BE INCREASED BY THE EXTRA AMOUNT. FOR A PRIMARY ELECTION IN WHICH ONE OR MORE PARTICIPATING CANDIDATES HAVE MADE THIS CHOICE, FUNDS SHALL BE PAID UNDER SUBSECTIONS A AND B OF THIS SECTION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ANY EXCESS OVER THE ORIGINAL PRIMARY ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT AS SO INCREASED. IF A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE WHO MAKES THIS CHOICE BECOMES QUALIFIED FOR CLEAN CAMPAIGN FUNDING FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION, THE AMOUNT THE CANDIDATE RECEIVES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD SHALL BE REDUCED BY THE EXTRA AMOUNT RECEIVED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION PERIOD, AND THE ORIGI- NAL GENERAL ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT FOR THAT CANDIDATE SHALL BE REDUCED BY THE EXTRA AMOUNT. FOR A GENERAL ELECTION IN WHICH A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE HAS MADE THIS CHOICE, FUNDS SHALL BE PAID UNDER SUBSECTIONS A AND B OF THIS SECTION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ANY EXCESS OVER THE ORIGINAL GENERAL ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT, WITHOUT SUCH REDUCTION, UNLESS THE CANDIDATE WHO HAS MADE THIS CHOICE IS THE ONLY PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, IN WHICH CASE SUCH FUNDS SHALL BE PAID TO THE EXTENT OF EXCESS OVER THE ORIGINAL GENERAL ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT WITH SUCH REDUCTION. FOR PURPOSE OF THIS SUBSECTION, A ONE-PARTY-DOMINANT LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT IS A DISTRICT IN WHICH THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS REG- ISTERED IN THE PARTY WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF REGIS- TERED VOTERS EXCEEDS THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS REGISTERED TO EACH OF THE OTHER PARTIES BY AN AMOUNT AT LEAST AS HIGH AS TEN PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VOT- ERS REGISTERED IN THE DISTRICT. THE STATUS OF A DISTRICT AS A ONE-PARTY-DOMINANT LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT SHALL BE DETERMINED AS OF THE BEGINNING OF THE QUALIFYING PERIOD. E. IF AN ADJUSTED SPENDING LIMIT REACHES THREE TIMES THE ORIGINAL SPENDING LIMIT FOR A PARTICULAR ELECTION, THEN THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT PAY ANY FURTHER AMOUNTS FROM THE FUND TO THE CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT OF ANY PARTICI- PATING CANDIDATE, AND THE SPENDING LIMIT SHALL NOT BE ADJUSTED FURTHER. 16-953. RETURN OF MONIES TO THE CITIZENS CLEAN ELEC- TIONS FUND. A. AT THE END OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION PERIOD, A PAR- TICIPATING CANDIDATE WHO HAS RECEIVED MONIES PURSUANT TO SECTION 16-951, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 1 SHALL RETURN TO THE FUND ALL MONIES IN THE CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 72 Proposition 200

ACCOUNT ABOVE AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO PAY ANY UNPAID BILLS FOR EXPENDITURES MADE DURING THE PRIMARY ELECTION PERIOD AND FOR GOODS OR SERVICES DIRECTED TO THE PRIMARY ELECTION. B. AT THE END OF THE GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD, A PAR- TICIPATING CANDIDATE SHALL RETURN TO THE FUND ALL MONIES IN THE CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT ABOVE AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO PAY ANY UNPAID BILLS FOR EXPENDITURES MADE BEFORE THE GENERAL ELECTION AND FOR GOODS OR SERVICES DIRECTED TO THE GENERAL ELECTION. C. A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE SHALL PAY ALL UNCON- TESTED AND UNPAID BILLS REFERENCED IN THIS SECTION NO LATER THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE PRIMARY OR GENERAL ELECTION. A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE SHALL MAKE MONTHLY REPORTS TO THE COMMISSION CONCERNING THE STATUS OF THE DISPUTE OVER ANY CONTESTED BILLS. ANY MONIES IN A CANDI- DATE’S CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT AFTER PAYMENT OF BILLS SHALL BE RETURNED PROMPTLY TO THE FUND. D. IF A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE IS REPLACED PURSUANT TO SECTION 16-343, AND THE REPLACEMENT CANDIDATE FILES AN OATH WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE CERTIFYING TO SECTION 16- 947, SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH 3, THE CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT OF THE PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE REPLACEMENT CANDIDATE AND THE COMMISSION SHALL CER- TIFY THE REPLACEMENT CANDIDATE AS A PARTICIPATING CANDI- DATE WITHOUT REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 16-950 OR THE REMAINDER OF SECTION 16-947. IF THE REPLACEMENT CANDI- DATE DOES NOT FILE SUCH AN OATH, THE CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT SHALL BE LIQUIDATED AND ALL REMAINING MONIES RETURNED TO THE FUND. 16-954. CLEAN ELECTIONS TAX REDUCTION; RETURN OF EXCESS MONIES. A. FOR TAX YEARS BEGINNING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 1998, A TAXPAYER WHO FILES ON A STATE INCOME TAX RETURN FORM MAY DESIGNATE A FIVE-DOLLAR VOLUNTARY CONTRIBU- TION PER TAXPAYER TO THE FUND BY MARKING AN OPTIONAL CHECK-OFF BOX ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE FORM. A TAXPAYER WHO CHECKS THIS BOX SHALL RECEIVE A FIVE-DOLLAR REDUC- TION IN THE AMOUNT OF TAX, AND FIVE DOLLARS FROM THE AMOUNT OF TAXES PAID SHALL BE TRANSFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TO THE FUND. THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SHALL PROVIDE CHECK-OFF BOXES, IDENTIFIED AS THE CLEAN ELECTIONS FUND TAX REDUCTION, ON THE FIRST PAGE OF INCOME TAX RETURN FORMS, FOR DESIGNATIONS PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION. B. ANY TAXPAYER MAY MAKE A VOLUNTARY DONATION TO THE FUND BY DESIGNATING THE FUND ON AN INCOME TAX RETURN FORM FILED BY THE INDIVIDUAL OR BUSINESS ENTITY

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 73 Proposition 200

OR BY MAKING A PAYMENT DIRECTLY TO THE FUND. ANY TAX- PAYER MAKING A DONATION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION SHALL RECEIVE A DOLLAR-FOR-DOLLAR TAX CREDIT NOT TO EXCEED TWENTY PERCENT OF THE TAX AMOUNT ON THE RETURN OR FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER TAXPAYER, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER. DONATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION ARE OTH- ERWISE NOT TAX DEDUCTIBLE AND CANNOT BE DESIGNATED AS FOR THE BENEFIT OF A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE, POLITICAL PARTY, OR ELECTION CONTEST. THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SHALL TRANSFER TO THE FUND ALL DONATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION. THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SHALL PRO- VIDE A SPACE, IDENTIFIED AS THE CLEAN ELECTIONS FUND TAX CREDIT, ON THE FIRST PAGE OF INCOME TAX RETURN FORMS, FOR DONATIONS PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION. C. BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1999, AN ADDITIONAL SUR- CHARGE OF TEN PERCENT SHALL BE IMPOSED ON ALL CIVIL AND CRIMINAL FINES AND PENALTIES COLLECTED PURSUANT TO SEC- TION 12-116.01 AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED INTO THE FUND. D. AT LEAST ONCE PER YEAR, THE COMMISSION SHALL PROJECT THE AMOUNT OF MONIES THAT THE FUND WILL COLLECT OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS AND THE TIME SUCH MONIES SHALL BECOME AVAILABLE. WHENEVER THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THE FUND CONTAINS MORE MONIES THAN THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT IT REQUIRES TO MEET CURRENT DEBTS PLUS EXPECTED EXPENSES, UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT EXPECTED EXPENSES WILL BE AT THE EXPENDITURE LIMIT IN SECTION 16-949, SUBSECTION A, AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PROJECTIONS OF COLLECTIONS, THE COMMISSION SHALL DESIGNATE SUCH MONIES AS EXCESS MONIES AND SO NOTIFY THE STATE TREASURER, WHO SHALL THEREUPON RETURN THE EXCESS MONIES TO THE GEN- ERAL FUND. E. AT LEAST ONCE PER YEAR, THE COMMISSION SHALL PROJECT THE AMOUNT OF CITIZEN FUNDING FOR WHICH ALL CAN- DIDATES WILL HAVE QUALIFIED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE FOR THE FOLLOWING CALENDAR YEAR. BY THE END OF EACH YEAR, THE COMMISSION SHALL ANNOUNCE WHETHER THE AMOUNT THAT THE COMMISSION PLANS TO SPEND THE FOLLOWING YEAR PURSUANT TO SECTION 16-949, SUBSECTION A EXCEEDS THE PRO- JECTED AMOUNT OF CITIZEN FUNDING. IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THE FUND CONTAINS INSUFFICIENT MONIES OR THE SPENDING CAP WOULD BE EXCEEDED WERE ALL CANDI- DATE’S ACCOUNTS TO BE FULLY FUNDED, THEN THE COMMISSION MAY INCLUDE IN THE ANNOUNCEMENT SPECIFICATIONS FOR DECREASES IN THE FOLLOWING PARAMETERS, BASED ON THE COMMISSION’S PROJECTIONS OF COLLECTIONS AND EXPENSES FOR THE FUND, MADE IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 1. FIRST, THE COMMISSION MAY ANNOUNCE A DECREASE IN THE MATCHING CAP UNDER SECTION 16-952,

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 74 Proposition 200

SUBSECTION E FROM THREE TIMES TO AN AMOUNT BETWEEN THREE AND ONE TIMES. 2. NEXT, THE COMMISSION MAY ANNOUNCE THAT THE FUND WILL PROVIDE EQUALIZATION MONIES UNDER SECTION 16-952, SUBSECTIONS A AND B AS A FRACTION OF THE AMOUNTS THERE SPECIFIED. 3. FINALLY, THE COMMISSION MAY ANNOUNCE THAT THE FUND WILL PROVIDE MONIES UNDER SECTION 16-951 AS A FRACTION OF THE AMOUNTS THERE SPECIFIED. F. IF THE COMMISSION CANNOT PROVIDE PARTICIPATING CANDIDATES WITH ALL MONIES SPECIFIED UNDER SECTIONS 16- 951 AND 16-952, AS DECREASED BY ANY ANNOUNCEMENT PURSU- ANT TO SUBSECTION E OF THIS SECTION, THEN THE COMMISSION SHALL ALLOCATE ANY REDUCTIONS IN PAYMENTS PROPORTION- ATELY AMONG CANDIDATES ENTITLED TO MONIES AND SHALL DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. UPON DECLARATION OF AN EMER- GENCY, A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE MAY ACCEPT PRIVATE CON- TRIBUTIONS TO BRING THE TOTAL MONIES RECEIVED BY THE CANDIDATE FROM THE FUND AND FROM SUCH PRIVATE CONTRI- BUTIONS UP TO THE ADJUSTED SPENDING LIMITS, AS DECREASED BY ANY ANNOUNCEMENT MADE PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION E OF THIS SECTION. 16-955. CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTION COMMISSION; STRUC- TURE. A. THE CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS COMMISSION IS ESTAB- LISHED CONSISTING OF FIVE MEMBERS. NO MORE THAN TWO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE MEMBERS OF THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY. NO MORE THAN TWO MEMBERS OF THE COM- MISSION SHALL BE RESIDENTS OF THE SAME COUNTY. NO ONE SHALL BE APPOINTED AS A MEMBER WHO DOES NOT HAVE A REG- ISTRATION PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1 OF THIS TITLE THAT HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY RECORDED FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING APPOINTMENT WITH THE SAME POLITI- CAL PARTY OR AS AN INDEPENDENT. B. THE COMMISSION ON APPELLATE COURT APPOINTMENTS SHALL NOMINATE CANDIDATES FOR VACANT COMMISSIONER POSITIONS WHO ARE COMMITTED TO ENFORCING THIS ARTICLE IN AN HONEST, INDEPENDENT, AND IMPARTIAL FASHION AND TO SEEKING TO UPHOLD PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM. EACH CANDIDATE SHALL BE A QUALI- FIED ELECTOR WHO HAS NOT, IN THE PREVIOUS FIVE YEARS IN THIS STATE, BEEN APPOINTED TO, BEEN ELECTED TO, OR RUN FOR ANY PUBLIC OFFICE, INCLUDING PRECINCT COMMITTEEMAN, OR SERVED AS AN OFFICER OF A POLITICAL PARTY. C. INITIALLY, THE COMMISSION ON APPELLATE COURT APPOINTMENTS SHALL NOMINATE FIVE SLATES, EACH HAVING THREE CANDIDATES, BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1999. NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 1, 1999, THE GOVERNOR SHALL SELECT ONE CANDI-

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 75 Proposition 200

DATE FROM ONE OF THE SLATES TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION FOR A TERM ENDING JANUARY 31, 2004. NEXT, THE HIGHEST-RANK- ING OFFICIAL HOLDING A STATEWIDE OFFICE WHO IS NOT A MEM- BER OF THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AS THE GOVERNOR SHALL SELECT ONE CANDIDATE FROM ANOTHER ONE OF THE SLATES TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION FOR A TERM ENDING JANUARY 31, 2003. NEXT, THE SECOND-HIGHEST-RANKING OFFICIAL HOLDING A STATEWIDE OFFICE WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AS THE GOVERNOR SHALL SELECT ONE CANDIDATE FROM ONE OF THE THREE REMAINING SLATES TO SERVE ON THE COM- MISSION FOR A TERM ENDING JANUARY 31, 2002. NEXT, THE SEC- OND-HIGHEST-RANKING OFFICIAL HOLDING A STATEWIDE OFFICE WHO IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AS THE GOVERNOR SHALL SELECT ONE CANDIDATE FROM ONE OF THE TWO REMAINING SLATES TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION FOR A TERM ENDING JANUARY 31, 2001. FINALLY, THE THIRD-HIGHEST- RANKING OFFICIAL HOLDING A STATEWIDE OFFICE WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AS THE GOVERNOR SHALL ELECT ONE CANDIDATE FROM THE LAST SLATE TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION FOR A TERM ENDING JANUARY 31, 2000. FOR PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, THE RANKING OF OFFICIALS HOLDING STATEWIDE OFFICE SHALL BE GOVERNOR, SECRETARY OF STATE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, TREASURER, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, CORPORATION COMMISSIONERS IN ORDER OF SENIORITY, MINE INSPECTOR, THE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN ORDER OF SENIORITY, SENATE MAJORITY AND MINOR- ITY LEADERS, AND HOUSE MAJORITY AND MINORITY LEADERS. D. ONE COMMISSIONER SHALL BE APPOINTED FOR A FIVE- YEAR TERM BEGINNING FEBRUARY 1 OF EVERY YEAR BEGINNING WITH THE YEAR 2000. THE COMMISSION ON APPELLATE COURT APPOINTMENTS SHALL NOMINATE ONE SLATE OF THREE CANDI- DATES BEFORE JANUARY 1 OF EACH YEAR BEGINNING IN THE YEAR 2000, AND THE GOVERNOR AND THE HIGHEST-RANKING OFFICIAL HOLDING A STATEWIDE OFFICE WHO IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AS THE GOVERNOR SHALL ALTER- NATE FILLING SUCH VACANCIES. THE VACANCY IN THE YEAR 2000 SHALL BE FILLED BY THE GOVERNOR. E. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MAY BE REMOVED BY THE GOVERNOR, WITH CONCURRENCE OF THE SENATE, FOR SUB- STANTIAL NEGLECT OF DUTY, GROSS MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE, INABILITY TO DISCHARGE THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF OFFICE, OR VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION, AFTER WRITTEN NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A RESPONSE. F. IF A COMMISSIONER DOES NOT COMPLETE HIS OR HER TERM OF OFFICE FOR ANY REASON, THE COMMISSION ON APPEL- LATE COURT APPOINTMENTS SHALL NOMINATE ONE SLATE OF THREE CANDIDATES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IN THE FIRST THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE COMMISSIONER VACATES HIS OR HER OFFICE

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 76 Proposition 200

AND A REPLACEMENT SHALL BE SELECTED FROM THE SLATE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF NOMINATION OF THE SLATE. THE HIGH- EST-RANKING OFFICIAL HOLDING A STATEWIDE OFFICE WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE POLITICAL PARTY OF THE OFFICIAL WHO NOMI- NATED THE COMMISSIONER WHO VACATED OFFICE SHALL NOMI- NATE THE REPLACEMENT, WHO SHALL SERVE AS COMMISSIONER FOR THE UNEXPIRED PORTION OF THE TERM. A VACANCY OR VACANCIES SHALL NOT IMPAIR THE RIGHT OF THE REMAINING MEMBERS TO EXERCISE ALL OF THE POWERS OF THE BOARD. G. COMMISSIONERS ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE COMPENSA- TION IN AN AMOUNT OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY ON WHICH THE COMMISSION MEETS AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES PURSUANT TO TITLE 38, CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 2. H. THE COMMISSIONERS SHALL ELECT A CHAIR TO SERVE FOR EACH CALENDAR-YEAR PERIOD FROM AMONG THEIR MEM- BERS WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THAT YEAR. THREE COMMISSIONERS SHALL CONSTITUTE A QUORUM. I. A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION SHALL SERVE NO MORE THAN ONE TERM AND IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT. NO COMMISSIONER, DURING HIS OR HER TENURE OR FOR THREE YEARS THEREAFTER, SHALL SEEK OR HOLD ANY OTHER PUBLIC OFFICE, SERVE AS AN OFFICER OF ANY POLITICAL COMMITTEE, OR EMPLOY OR BE EMPLOYED AS A LOBBYIST. J. THE COMMISSION SHALL APPOINT AN EXECUTIVE DIREC- TOR WHO SHALL NOT BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION AND WHO SHALL SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION SET BY THE BOARD WITHIN THE RANGE DETERMINED UNDER SEC- TION 38-611. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SUBJECT TO TITLE 41, CHAPTER 4, ARTICLES 5 AND 6, SHALL EMPLOY, DETERMINE THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, AND SPECIFY THE DUTIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE, SECRETARIAL, AND CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AS THE DIRECTOR DEEMS NECESSARY. 16-956. VOTER EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT DUTIES. A. THE COMMISSION SHALL: 1. DEVELOP, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE COUNTY RECORDERS, A PROCEDURE FOR INCLUDING, WITH BALLOTS MAILED TO ELECTORS CASTING EARLY BALLOTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 16-542, SUBSECTION C AND WITH THE SAMPLE BALLOTS MAILED TO OTHER ELECTORS PURSUANT TO SEC- TION 16-461, SUBSECTION D AND SECTION 16-510, SUBSECTION C, A DOCUMENT OR SECTION OF A DOCUMENT HAVING A SPACE OF PREDEFINED SIZE FOR A MESSAGE CHOSEN BY EACH CANDIDATE. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SHALL PRESENT TO THE COMMISSION A CERTIFIED CLAIM FOR THE ACTUAL EXTRA COST OF INCLUDING THE MESSAGES IN SUCH MAIL- INGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE DEVELOPED,

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 77 Proposition 200

AND THE COMMISSION SHALL DIRECT PAYMENT OF THE AUTHENTICATED CLAIMS FROM THE FUND. 2. SPONSOR DEBATES AMONG CANDIDATES, IN SUCH MANNER AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION. THE COMMIS- SION SHALL REQUIRE PARTICIPATING CANDIDATES TO ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN DEBATES AND MAY SPECIFY BY RULE PENALTIES FOR NONPARTICIPATION. THE COMMISSION SHALL INVITE AND PERMIT NONPARTICIPATING CANDIDATES TO PAR- TICIPATE IN DEBATES. B. THE COMMISSION SHALL: 1. PRESCRIBE FORMS FOR REPORTS, STATEMENTS, NOTICES, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THIS ARTI- CLE. 2. PREPARE AND PUBLISH INSTRUCTIONS SETTING FORTH METHODS OF BOOKKEEPING AND PRESERVATION OF RECORDS TO FACILITATE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE AND EXPLAINING THE DUTIES OF PERSONS AND COMMITTEES UNDER THIS ARTICLE. 3. PRODUCE A YEARLY REPORT DESCRIBING THE COM- MISSION’S ACTIVITIES, ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES OF LAW, ADMINISTRATION, OR FUNDING AMOUNTS, AND ACCOUNTING FOR MONIES IN THE FUND. 4. ADOPT RULES TO IMPLEMENT THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 16-958, SUBSECTIONS D AND E. 5. ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE, ENSURE THAT MONEY FROM THE FUND IS PLACED IN CANDIDATE CAM- PAIGN ACCOUNTS OR OTHERWISE SPENT AS SPECIFIED IN THIS ARTICLE AND NOT OTHERWISE, MONITOR REPORTS FILED PUR- SUANT TO THIS CHAPTER AND FINANCIAL RECORDS OF CAN- DIDATES AS NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT EQUALIZATION MONIES ARE PAID PROMPTLY TO OPPOSING QUALIFIED CANDIDATES UNDER SECTION 16-952, AND ENSURE THAT MONEY REQUIRED BY THIS ARTICLE TO BE PAID TO THE FUND IS DEPOSITED IN THE FUND. C. THE COMMISSION MAY SUBPOENA WITNESSES, COMPEL THEIR ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY, ADMINISTER OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS, TAKE EVIDENCE, AND REQUIRE BY SUBPOENA THE PRODUCTION OF ANY BOOKS, PAPERS, RECORDS, OR OTHER ITEMS MATERIAL TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COMMISSION’S DUTIES OR THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS. D. THE COMMISSION MAY ADOPT RULES TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES AND PROVISION OF THIS ARTICLE AND TO GOVERN PROCEDURES OF THE COMMISSION. COMMISSION RULEMAKING IS EXEMPT FROM TITLE 41, ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 6, EXCEPT THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL SUBMIT THE RULES FOR PUBLICATION AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL PUBLISH THE RULES IN THE ARI- ZONA ADMINISTRATIVE REGISTER. THE COMMISSION SHALL PRO- POSE AND ADOPT RULES IN PUBLIC MEETINGS, WITH AT LEAST

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 78 Proposition 200

SIXTY DAYS ALLOWED FOR INTERESTED PARTIES TO COMMENT AFTER THE RULES ARE PROPOSED. E. BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTIONS IN THE YEAR 2002 OR ANY QUADRENNIAL ELECTION THEREAFTER, AND WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER SUCH ELECTION, THE COMMISSION MAY ADOPT RULES CHANGING THE NUMBER OF QUALIFYING CONTRI- BUTIONS REQUIRED FOR ANY OFFICE FROM THOSE LISTED IN SEC- TION 16-950, SUBSECTION D, BY NO MORE THAN TWENTY PERCENT OF THE NUMBER APPLICABLE FOR THE PRECEDING ELECTION. 16-957. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE. A. IF THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A PERSON HAS VIOLATED ANY PROVISION OF THIS ARTICLE, THE COMMISSION SHALL SERVE ON THAT PERSON AN ORDER STATING WITH REASONABLE PARTICULARITY THE NATURE OF THE VIOLATION AND REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITHIN FOUR- TEEN DAYS. DURING THAT PERIOD, THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR MAY PROVIDE ANY EXPLANATION TO THE COMMISSION, COMPLY WITH THE ORDER, OR ENTER INTO A PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE SETTLE- MENT WITH THE COMMISSION. B. UPON EXPIRATION OF THE FOURTEEN DAYS, IF THE COM- MISSION FINDS THAT THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR REMAINS OUT OF COMPLIANCE, THE COMMISSION SHALL MAKE A PUBLIC FINDING TO THAT EFFECT AND ISSUE AN ORDER ASSESSING A CIVIL PEN- ALTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 16-942, UNLESS THE COM- MISSION PUBLISHES FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW EXPRESSING GOOD CAUSE FOR REDUCING OR EXCUSING THE PENALTY. THE VIOLATOR HAS FOURTEEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER ASSESSING THE PENALTY TO APPEAL TO THE SUPERIOR COURT AS PROVIDED IN TITLE 12, CHAPTER 7, ARTI- CLE 6. C. ANY CANDIDATE IN A PARTICULAR ELECTION CONTEST WHO BELIEVES THAT ANY OPPOSING CANDIDATE HAS VIOLATED THIS ARTICLE FOR THAT ELECTION MAY FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE COMMISSION REQUESTING THAT ACTION BE TAKEN PURSU- ANT TO THIS SECTION. IF THE COMMISSION FAILS TO MAKE A FINDING UNDER SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE FILING OF SUCH A COMPLAINT, THE CANDIDATE MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT TO IMPOSE THE CIVIL PENALTIES PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION. 16-958. MANNER OF FILING REPORTS. A. ANY PERSON WHO HAS PREVIOUSLY REACHED THE DOL- LAR AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 16-941, SUBSECTION D FOR FILING AN ORIGINAL REPORT SHALL FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT EACH TIME PREVIOUSLY UNREPORTED INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES SPECIFIED BY THAT SUBSECTION EXCEEDS ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS. ANY PERSON WHO HAS PREVIOUSLY REACHED THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 16-941, SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH 2 FOR FILING AN ORIGINAL REPORT

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 79 Proposition 200

SHALL FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO DECLARE THAT PREVI- OUSLY UNREPORTED EXPENDITURES OR CONTRIBUTIONS SPECI- FIED BY THAT PARAGRAPH EXCEED (1) TEN PERCENT OF THE ORIGINAL PRIMARY ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT OR TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, WHICHEVER IS LOWER, BEFORE THE GEN- ERAL ELECTION PERIOD, OR (2) TEN PERCENT OF THE ORIGINAL GENERAL ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT OR TWENTY-FIVE THOU- SAND DOLLARS, WHICHEVER IS LOWER, DURING THE GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD. SUCH REPORTS SHALL BE FILED AT THE TIMES SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION B OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL IDEN- TIFY THE DOLLAR AMOUNT BEING REPORTED, THE CANDIDATE, AND THE DATE. B. ANY PERSON WHO MUST FILE AN ORIGINAL REPORT PUR- SUANT TO SECTION 16-941, SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH 2 OR SUB- SECTION D, OR WHO MUST FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR PREVIOUSLY UNREPORTED AMOUNTS PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION, SHALL FILE AS FOLLOWS: 1. BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION PERIOD, THE PERSON SHALL FILE A REPORT ON THE FIRST OF EACH MONTH, UNLESS THE PERSON HAS NOT REACHED THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR FILING AN ORIGINAL OR SUPPLEMEN- TAL REPORT ON THAT DATE. 2. THEREAFTER, EXCEPT AS STATED IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THIS SUBSECTION, THE PERSON SHALL FILE A REPORT ON ANY TUESDAY BY WHICH THE PERSON HAS REACHED THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR FILING AN ORIGINAL OR SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. 3. DURING THE LAST TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE PRIMARY ELECTION AND THE LAST TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE GENERAL ELECTION, THE PERSON SHALL FILE A REPORT WITHIN ONE BUSINESS DAY OF REACHING THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR FIL- ING AN ORIGINAL OR SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. C. ANY FILING UNDER THIS ARTICLE ON BEHALF OF A CAN- DIDATE MAY BE MADE BY THE CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN COMMIT- TEE. ALL CANDIDATES SHALL DEPOSIT ANY CHECK RECEIVED BY AND INTENDED FOR THE CAMPAIGN AND MADE PAYABLE TO THE CANDIDATE OR THE CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, AND ALL CASH RECEIVED BY AND INTENDED FOR THE CAMPAIGN, IN THE CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF THE NEXT REPORT SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION B OF THIS SEC- TION. NO CANDIDATE OR PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF A CANDI- DATE SHALL CONSPIRE WITH A DONOR TO POSTPONE DELIVERY OF A DONATION TO THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE PURPOSE OF POST- PONING THE REPORTING OF THE DONATION IN ANY SUBSEQUENT REPORT. D. THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE COMMISSION OF THE FILING OF EACH REPORT UNDER THIS SECTION AND DELIVER A COPY OF THE REPORT TO THE COMMIS-

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 80 Proposition 200

SION, AND THE COMMISSION SHALL PROMPTLY MAIL OR OTHER- WISE DELIVER A COPY OF EACH REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO ALL PARTICIPATING CANDIDATES OPPOSING THE CAN- DIDATE IDENTIFIED IN SECTION 16-941, SUBSECTION B, PARA- GRAPH 2 OR SUBSECTION D. E. ANY REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION OR SEC- TION 16-916, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 1 OR SUBSECTION B SHALL BE FILED IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT. THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL DISTRIBUTE COMPUTER SOFTWARE TO POLITICAL COMMITTEES TO ACCOMMODATE SUCH ELECTRONIC FILING. F. DURING THE PRIMARY ELECTION PERIOD AND THE GEN- ERAL ELECTION PERIOD, ALL CANDIDATES SHALL MAKE AVAIL- ABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ALL BANK ACCOUNTS, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS, AND FINANCIAL RECORDS RELATING TO THE CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN, EITHER BY IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE THROUGH ELECTRONIC MEANS OR AT THE CANDIDATE’S CAM- PAIGN HEADQUARTERS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION. 16-959. INFLATIONARY AND OTHER ADJUSTMENTS OF DOLLAR VALUES. A. EVERY TWO YEARS, THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL MODIFY THE DOLLAR VALUES SPECIFIED IN THE FOLLOWING PARTS OF THIS ARTICLE, IN THE MANNER SPECIFIED BY SECTION 16-905, SUBSECTION J, TO ACCOUNT FOR INFLATION: SECTION 16- 941, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 2 OR SUBSECTION D; SECTION 16- 942, SUBSECTION B; SECTION 16-944; SECTION 16-945, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2; SECTION 16-948, PARAGRAPH C; SECTION 16-954, SUBSECTION B; SECTION 16-955, SUBSECTION G; AND SEC- TION 16-961, SUBSECTIONS G AND H. IN ADDITION, THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL MAKE A SIMILAR INFLATION ADJUSTMENT BY MODIFYING THE DOLLAR VALUES IN SECTION 16-949, SUBSECTION A AND SECTION 16-954, SUBSECTION A TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR. IN ADDITION, EVERY TWO YEARS, THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL CHANGE THE DOLLAR VALUES IN SECTION 16-961, SUBSEC- TIONS G AND H IN PROPORTION TO THE CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF ARIZONA RESIDENT PERSONAL INCOME TAX RETURNS FILED DURING THE PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR. B. BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTIONS IN THE YEAR 2002 OR ANY QUADRENNIAL ELECTION THEREAFTER, AND WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER SUCH ELECTION, THE COMMISSION MAY ADOPT RULES IN A PUBLIC MEETING REALLOCATING FUNDS AVAILABLE TO ALL CANDIDATES BETWEEN THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS BY SELECTING A FRACTION FOR PRIMARY ELECTION SPENDING LIMITS THAT IS BETWEEN ONE THIRD AND ONE HALF OF THE SPENDING LIMITS FOR THE ELECTION AS A WHOLE. FOR EACH OFFICE, THE PRIMARY ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT SHALL BE MODIFIED TO BE THE SUM OF THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL SPENDING LIMITS TIMES THE SELECTED FRACTION, AND

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 81 Proposition 200

THE GENERAL ELECTION SPENDING LIMIT SHALL BE MODIFIED TO BE THE SAME SUM TIMES ONE LESS THE SELECTED FRACTION. 16-960. SEVERABILITY. IF A PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR ITS APPLICATION TO ANY PER- SON OR CIRCUMSTANCE IS HELD INVALID, THE INVALIDITY DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER PROVISIONS OR APPLICATIONS OF THE ACT THAT CAN BE GIVEN EFFECT WITHOUT THE INVALID PROVISION OR APPLICATION, AND TO THIS END THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT ARE SEVERABLE. IN ANY COURT CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF THIS ARTICLE, THE COMMISSION AND ARIZONANS FOR CLEAN ELECTIONS SHALL HAVE STANDING TO INTERVENE. 16-961. DEFINITIONS. A. THE TERMS “CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE,” “CONTRIBUTION,” “EXPENDITURES,” “EXPLORATORY COMMIT- TEE,” “INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE,” “PERSONAL MONIES,” “POLITICAL COMMITTEE,” AND “STATEWIDE OFFICE” ARE DEFINED IN SECTION 16-901. B. 1. “ELECTION CYCLE” MEANS THE PERIOD BETWEEN SUC- CESSIVE GENERAL ELECTIONS FOR A PARTICULAR OFFICE. 2. “EXPLORATORY PERIOD” MEANS THE PERIOD BEGIN- NING ON THE DAY AFTER A GENERAL ELECTION AND ENDING THE DAY BEFORE THE START OF THE QUALIFYING PERIOD. 3. “QUALIFYING PERIOD” MEANS THE PERIOD BEGIN- NING ON THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST IN A YEAR PRECEDING AN ELECTION, FOR AN ELECTION FOR A STATEWIDE OFFICE, OR ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY OF AN ELECTION YEAR, FOR AN ELECTION FOR LEGISLATOR, AND ENDING SEVENTY- FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE DAY OF THE GENERAL ELECTION. 4. “PRIMARY ELECTION PERIOD” MEANS THE NINE- WEEK PERIOD ENDING ON THE DAY OF THE PRIMARY ELEC- TION. 5. “GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD” MEANS THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON THE DAY AFTER THE PRIMARY ELECTION AND ENDING ON THE DAY OF THE GENERAL ELECTION. 6. FOR ANY RECALL ELECTION, THE QUALIFYING PERIOD SHALL BEGIN WHEN THE ELECTION IS CALLED AND LAST FOR THIRTY DAYS, THERE SHALL BE NO PRIMARY ELEC- TION PERIOD, AND THE GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD SHALL EXTEND FROM THE DAY AFTER THE END OF THE QUALIFYING PERIOD TO THE DAY OF THE RECALL ELECTION. FOR RECALL ELECTIONS, ANY REFERENCE TO “GENERAL ELECTION” IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE TREATED AS IF REFERRING TO THE RECALL ELECTION. C. 1. “PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE” MEANS A CANDIDATE WHO BECOMES CERTIFIED AS A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 16-947.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 82 Proposition 200

2. “NONPARTICIPATING CANDIDATE” MEANS A CANDI- DATE WHO DOES NOT BECOME CERTIFIED AS A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 16-947. 3. ANY LIMITATION OF THIS ARTICLE THAT IS APPLICA- BLE TO A PARTICIPATING CANDIDATE OR A NONPARTICIPATING CANDIDATE SHALL ALSO APPLY TO THAT CANDIDATE’S CAM- PAIGN COMMITTEE OR EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE. D. “COMMISSION” MEANS THE CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS COMMISSION ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 16-955. E. “FUND” MEANS THE CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTION FUND DEFINED BY THIS ARTICLE. F. 1. “PARTY NOMINEE” MEANS A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN NOMINATED BY A POLITICAL PARTY PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 16-301 OR 16-343. 2. “INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE” MEANS A CANDIDATE WHO HAS PROPERLY FILED NOMINATING PAPERS AND NOMI- NATING PETITIONS WITH SIGNATURES PURSUANT TO SECTION 16-341. 3. “UNOPPOSED,” WITH REFERENCE TO AN ELECTION FOR A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MEANS OPPOSED BY NO MORE THAN ONE OTHER CANDIDATE. G. “PRIMARY ELECTION SPENDING LIMITS” MEANS: 1. FOR A CANDIDATE FOR LEGISLATURE, TEN THOU- SAND DOLLARS. 2. FOR CANDIDATE FOR MINE INSPECTOR, TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. 3. FOR A CANDIDATE FOR TREASURER, SUPERINTEN- DENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OR CORPORATION COMMIS- SION, FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. 4. FOR A CANDIDATE FOR SECRETARY OF STATE OR ATTORNEY GENERAL, EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. 5. FOR A CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR, THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. H. “GENERAL ELECTION SPENDING LIMITS” MEANS AMOUNTS FIFTY PERCENT GREATER THAN THE AMOUNTS SPECI- FIED IN SUBSECTION G OF THIS SECTION. I. 1. “ORIGINAL” SPENDING LIMIT MEANS A LIMIT SPECI- FIED IN SUBSECTIONS G AND H OF THIS SECTION, AS ADJUSTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 16-959, OR A SPECIAL AMOUNT EXPRESSLY SET FOR A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE BY A PROVISION OF THIS TITLE. 2. “ADJUSTED” SPENDING LIMIT MEANS AN ORIGINAL SPENDING LIMIT AS FURTHER ADJUSTED TO ACCOUNT FOR REPORTED OVERAGES PURSUANT TO SECTION 16-952. Section 2. In title 16, chapter 6, article 1, add the following section:

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 83 Proposition 200

16-901.01. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN UNREPORTED EXPENDI- TURES AND CONTRIBUTIONS. A. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER, “EXPRESSLY ADVO- CATES” MEANS: 1. CONVEYING A COMMUNICATION CONTAINING A PHRASE SUCH AS “VOTE FOR,” “ELECT,” “RE-ELECT,” “SUP- PORT,” “ENDORSE,” “CAST YOUR BALLOT FOR,” “(NAME OF CANDIDATE) IN (YEAR),” “(NAME OF CANDIDATE) FOR (OFFICE),” “VOTE AGAINST,” “DEFEAT,” “REJECT,” OR A CAM- PAIGN SLOGAN OR WORDS THAT IN CONTEXT CAN HAVE NO REASONABLE MEANING OTHER THAN TO ADVOCATE THE ELECTION OR DEFEAT OF ONE OR MORE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED CANDIDATES, OR 2. MAKING A GENERAL PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, SUCH AS IN A BROADCAST MEDIUM, NEWSPAPER, MAGAZINE, BILL- BOARD, OR DIRECT MAILER REFERRING TO ONE OR MORE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED CANDIDATES AND TARGETED TO THE ELECTORATE OF THAT CANDIDATE(S): (A) THAT IN CONTEXT CAN HAVE NO REASONABLE MEAN- ING OTHER THAN TO ADVOCATE THE ELECTION OR DEFEAT OF THE CANDIDATE(S), AS EVIDENCED BY FACTORS SUCH AS THE PRESENTATION OF THE CANDIDATE(S) IN A FAVORABLE OR UNFAVORABLE LIGHT, THE TARGETING, PLACEMENT, OR TIM- ING OF THE COMMUNICATION, OR THE INCLUSION OF STATE- MENTS OF THE CANDIDATE(S) OR OPPONENTS, OR (B) IN THE SIXTEEN-WEEK PERIOD IMMEDIATELY PRE- CEDING A GENERAL ELECTION. B. A COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 2 SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS ONE THAT “EXPRESSLY ADVOCATES” MERELY BECAUSE IT PRESENTS INFOR- MATION ABOUT THE VOTING RECORD OR POSITION ON A CAM- PAIGN ISSUE OF THREE OR MORE CANDIDATES, SO LONG AS IT IS NOT MADE IN COORDINATION WITH A CANDIDATE, POLITICAL PARTY, AGENT OF THE CANDIDATE OR PARTY, OR A PERSON WHO IS COORDINATING WITH A CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE’S AGENT.

ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (In Compliance With A.R.S. Section 19-124) Proposition 200 would establish a system for the public funding of election campaigns for political candidates who voluntarily participate in a system to limit campaign spending and fundraising in statewide and state legislative elections. The proposition would also reduce by twenty percent the amount per individual that can currently be contributed to a candidate if they opt not to receive the public funding. Proposition 200 would establish a Citizens Clean Election Commission that consists of five members, no more than two of whom can be from the same political party or same county. Persons would be eligible for membership on the Commission if they meet certain voter registration requirements, are not lobbyists and have not been can-

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 84 Proposition 200 didates for public office or appointed to public office. Members are appointed by both the Governor and the highest ranking statewide officeholder who is not from the same political party as the Governor. Candidates who agree to limit their fund-raising and spending would qualify to receive money from the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. To qualify, a candidate would have to receive a specified number of $5.00 contributions from registered voters from within the candidate’s district. The total money distributed by the Com- mission would be limited to $5.00 multiplied by the number of individual state income tax returns filed that year. Participating candidates would be: 1. Prohibited from spending more than the amounts established by the Commis- sion for the primary and the general election. 2. Limited in the amount of personal money that could be used in the campaign. 3. Prohibited from accepting other contributions, except as specified for emergency situations. Proposition 200 would establish reporting requirements for participating candidates in addition to the requirements under current law and would provide for various penalties, including forfeiture of office, for violations. This proposition would establish a 10% surcharge on certain civil penalties and criminal fines and a $100 annual fee on lobbyists representing for-profit entities, including trade groups of for-profit entities, and would allow any other person to donate to pay for public financing of candidates. Taxpayers who donate are eligible for a tax credit in the amount of the donation up to $500 or 20% of the taxpayer’s total tax owed, whichever is more. The Citizens Clean Elections Commission would enforce and administer the system, including the allocation of money to qualified candidates, sponsor debates, adopt rules, ensure proper use of the money distributed to candidates and provide education to voters. ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 200 Argument “FOR” the Citizens Clean Elections Act As a former Governor of Arizona, I have seen first hand the increasing negative influence of campaign contributions. I remember a time when regular voters could have the ear of their elected officals. Today, it’s money that talks in political campaigns and it threatens the principles of our democracy. Many candidates are forced to spend too much time raising money and not enough time representing the people of Arizona. The Clean Elections Act reduces special interest influence, limits campaign spending, and enables candidates without access to wealth to run for office, waging a battle of ideas rather than bank accounts. It also increases penalties on violators of campaign laws, and increases financial disclosure. Real reform is the first step towards reducing voter apathy and increasing participation in the electoral process. It’s time for Arizona voters to vote “YES” for Clean

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 85 Proposition 200

Elections reform and restore the principles of fairness, equality, and integrity to our democracy. Rose Mofford Former Governor Phoenix Paid for by Arizonans for Clean Elections; Gary Tredway, Treasurer ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 200 As a member of Arizona’s business community for over 12 years, I have seen the corrosive effect that money in politics has on our state. Every election cycle, I get call after call from candidates asking for contributions to help fund their campaigns. It annoys me because I’d rather that my elected officials spend their time meeting with Arizonans and talking about issues. I’d rather my elected representatives speak with me because they want to know what is important to me as the owner of a small business and not just because I have the money they need to run for office. If candidates for office spend all their time raising money, and then feet obligated to those who fund their campaigns, all of us lose out. A thriving system depends upon solid governance and policies that benefit all of Arizonans, not just a few who can afford to “pay to play”. But, it shouldn’t take big money to run for office and it shouldn’t take connections to the wealthy few who have that money. Yes, I am one of those who can contribute to campaigns. I’m a Republican. But, I believe that running for office should be about representing the values that Arizonans stand for, and the issues that Arizonans support. The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act can end this constant money chase and limit the amount of money our candidates spend on their races, It will allow all good, qualified candidates to run for office regardless of their wealth or access to it. And, it will give all Arizonans more information about who is funding our candidates by increasing disclosure requirements. Vote “YES” on the Citizens Clean Elections Act. Brian Mead President, Specialty Dialysis Services, Inc. Tempe Paid for by Arizonans for Clean Elections; Gary Tredway, Treasurer ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 200 Why is it that fewer and fewer people choose to exercise their most precious of all rights - the right to vote! The shocking fact is that non voters outnumber voters. Polls reveal that a lack of confidence in government is a major factor. Voters believe that their elected representatives enact policies that favor special interests - not theirs. No wonder they are disillusioned and angry! Candidates spend more and more time raising money. Incumbents pay less attention to their official duties and more to raising money to finance campaigns. The ever growing cost of campaigns prevents many qualified people from seeking public office. One cannot run for public office without money.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 86 Proposition 200

Where does the money come from? Why should you be concerned? Because important issues regarding health care, children, and the environment are affected by political contributions. Health care industry interests opposed to new standards for patient care have stepped up their political giving. Drugs cost more because of campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. School construction is obstructed because legislators yield to the bonding industry. Most corporations and wealthy donors give money because they expect something in return. Elected officals who consistently vote against the interests of their donors will see future contributions significantly reduced. You can end the money chase, halt corruption, limit campaign spending and reduce special interest influence by supporting “Clean Elections.” The League of Women Voters of Arizona urges you to vote yes on the “Clean Election Act.” Dr. Lila J. Schwartz, President Ann Eschinger, President Leauge of Women Voters of Arizona League of Women Voters of Sun City West Metropolitan Phoenix Phoenix Paid for by League of Women Voters of Metro Phoenix; Ann Eschinger, President ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 200 As an active member of our community, I have witnessed Arizona thrive economi- cally over the past three decades. During these years every segment of our society has been participating in Arizona’s growing reputation nationally as a good place to raise a family, pursue a career, and participate in the community. However, after years of grass roots support for local, state, and national political candidates of both parties, I have noticed an alarming trend which if not stopped will destroy democracy as we know it. The culprit is the insatiable pursuit of private political contributions by candidates for office. With the demand for big money so acute, powerful contributors lock up the attention of their candidates, and at worst influence public policy. It is time to stop our politcians’ addiction to huge privately funded campaigns. Our politicians should be free again to represent the best interests of all the citizens, not just the large financial contributors who can trade their cash for political support. When we return Arizona’s politicians to the competition of ideals and not money we will reset the foundation of democracy in Arizona. The Citizens’ Clean Elections Act is the right step to clean up Arizona politics. It frees the politicians from the money chase, ends the relentless pursuit from big money, and allows more Arizonans the opportunity to serve in public office. Simply stated, it levels the playing field and stops corruption. Only those who have been stealing our politicians’ independence with big money could oppose the Clean Elec- tions Act. I urge you, for the future of Arizona, to vote yes for Clean Elections. John Benton Tempe

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 87 Proposition 200 ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 200 Argument FOR Citizens Clean Elections Act Intitiative Every time the voting record of Americans is being discussed, someone accuses the voters of being “lazy” or “indifferent”, because of the low turnout at elections. I don’t believe that accusation for a minute! Disgusted, yes. Dispirited, you bet. Crushed, absolutely. But ... not lazy! We’re angry ... terribly angry ... because we have reached the limit of our patience. We don’t believe our politicians any more. As far back as I can remember, Congress has promised another campaign finance reform bill. Every few years, they pass a bill with “campaign finance reform” in the title. And, each time, lobbyists and special interests end up with more and more power over our politcians ... and we have less and less. We have watched in horror as, in each new election, the politicians have extended the boundaries of ethical campaigning, skirting the edges of the campaign finance laws at every opportunity. Politicians are now acting just like children ... always testing to see if we will accept some new style of unruly campaign behavior. It’s time for us to take charge and mandate the desperately needed corrections! The first crucial step is to pass the Citizens Clean Elections Act ... to create an electoral system untainted by questionable contributions. Without overhauling the whole voting process, we can simply VOTE YES, to make sure that no lobbyist or special interest can again “buy” a candidate as they are doing now. Honest candidates won’t be hurt by the Citizens Clean Elections Act ... they will be helped. Instead of having to meet with special interest groups month after month to scavenge for campaign money, they can spend their valuable time working for their constituents. When you will VOTE YES for Clean Elections, you can be taking the first important step in cleaning up our election system. John De Lasaux President, United We Stand America - Arizona, Inc. Phoenix Paid for by Arizonans for Clean Elections; Gary Tredway, Treasurer ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 200 I’m 76 years old, born and raised in Arizona. In my lifetime, I’ve seen a lot of changes in Arizona politics. Arizonans -- in the past -- had earned a reputation for electing strong and independent political leaders. Now, Arizona has earned the reputation of a state rife with corruption and the abuse of money in politics. Our elected officials are going to jail and this cycle of abuse seems endless. It’s time to change that. It’s time to restore confidence in our political system. It’s time to pass the Citizens Clean Election Act.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 88 Proposition 200

The Citizens Clean Election Act -- endorsed by the State Legislative Council of AARP, Arizona League of Women Voters and countless other organizations, will take big money out of politics and reduce special interest influence. By limiting campaign spending and increasing disclosure requirements, it will level the playing field so that the voices of Arizona’s working families and seniors on fixed incomes are heard just as loudly as the big money donors who are corrupting our system. Join me in voting “YES” on Proposition 200. Let’s clean-up Arizona politics. John Eichenauer Phoenix Paid for by Arizonans for Clean Elections; Gary Tredway, Treasurer ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 200 Argument for Proposition 200 (Arizonans for Clean Elections) As members of the organization responsible for many of Arizona’s existing campaign spending limits and lobbyist reforms, and as an organization that works every day in the Legislature and sees the pervasive and corrosive effects of lobbyist money in political campaigns, we believe that Proposition 200 is the the strong medicine needed in the Arizona Legislature. It provides a sensible way to reduce the role of special interest money, ratchet-down the expense of political campaigns, enable good, new people from our communities to run against lobbyist-funded candidates, enable elected leaders to stop the money chase altogether and spend more time on the hard issues, and provide Arizonans with more timely disclosure regarding who is receiving special interest money. Arizona Common Cause volunteers strongly support Proposition 200 and urge you to vote “YES.” Rod Engelen, State Chairman Common Cause of Arizona Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 200 I urge you to VOTE NO on the so-called “Clean Elections Act.” What this act really does is raise several new taxes in order to use taxpayer dollars to fund fringe candidates that have little or no support for their special interest agendas. The act forces you to contribute your taxpayer dollars to support candidates from other parties you don’t even agree with. The act raises a new 10% tax on civil and criminal fines and penalities, levies a tax on all registered lobbyists, allows check-off taxes on income taxes and establishes a “qualifying fee” tax on candidates. In addition, the act limits free speech by restricting how much money a candidate may spend. The sponsors themselves acknowledge that only the “voluntary” nature of the program keeps this from being clearly unconstitutional. However, the act goes on to punish non-taxpayer funded candidates by reducing their fund raising ability by 20% if they don’t participate. The act also creates a brand new bureaucracy to publicly administer these new taxes and to fund candidates. This means bureaucrats spending your tax dollars to control state elections, funding and candidates. Is that what we want?

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 89 Proposition 200

In a nutshell, the act levies a host of new taxes, creates a new level of bureaucracy, provides taxpayer funds for fringe candidates, punishes candidates who don’t want to use taxpayer funds, and limits free speech. This is a horrible affront to both taxpayers and voters. Join me and VOTE NO on Proposition 200. Jack F Cain Glendale ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 200 Letter against Initiative 10-I-98 This initiative has nothing to do with clean elections. Despite it’s name it would provide expensive elections! This initiative should be called “Show me the money!” This Initiative establishes additional government bureaucracy at a hidden cost to the tax payers. The hidden costs include: replacing the tax dollars diverted from the States General Fund on income tax forms, the difficult audit process, the Elections Commission (with its commissioners and executive director), the state funded candidate education material and public funded debates. We do not need the state tax payers to be responsible for funding candidates. Candi- dates must be responsible for their own campaigns. This is a pyramid scheme, a legislative candidate need only raise $1,000 and they may receive $10,000 in the primary election and $15,000 in the general election. We will be wasting our tax dollars on wacky candidates that common sense tells us would have no chance of winning. This inititative does nothing to make our election more honest. Instead of clean elections, Arizona's tax payers will receive a large bill! Save our tax dollars for education and the safety of our children - do not support 10-I-98. Lori Marsh Scottsdale ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 200 Proposition 200: * uses our tax payer dollars to finance political campaigns, * raids state revenues to finance individual political campaigns and takes our tax dollars away from education, prisons and the community’s social needs, * increases taxes * penalizes candidates who chose not to participate and * penalizes volunteers who participate in volunteer organizations. The Arizona Farm Bureau, a volunteer organization of Arizona’s farmers and ranchers, OPPOSES Proposition 200. This year the legislature appropriated nearly $6 billion to fund state government including $400 million to repair and construct schools and $130 million for children’s healthcare. Proposition 200 allows a taxpayer to reduce their income taxes by $500 or 20 per cent of their tax liability “WHICHEVER IS HIGHER”. This diversion of tax

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 90 Proposition 200 dollars to finance individual political campaigns makes less money available for education and child welfare, which, in turn, raises taxes on all of us. Proposition 200 penalizes candidates who chose not to participate in this public finance scheme. Arizona already has some of the nation’s strictest contribution limits. It further restricts a campaign contribution given by you to a candidate of your choice. Proposition 200 penalizes volunteers of organizations that participate in the political process. It charges them $100 every year to represent their organization when an issue affects them and their profession or industry. The drafters were very careful in writing this section. You see they only make this tax apply to those volunteers who represent special interests of “FOR PROFIT ENTITIES”. The $100 tax does not apply to those special interests that proclaim themselves to be free of any economic interest. Many of these groups advocate more spending of our taxes and more regula- tions on you and your businesses. Let’s be fair. You should not support tax payer funding of individual political campaigns, Vote NO on Proposition 200. Ken Evans, President Andy Kurtz, Secretary and Chief Arizona Farm Bureau Federation Administrative Officer Yuma Arizona Farm Bureau Federation Phoenix

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 91 Proposition 200 BALLOT FORMAT PROPOSITION 200 PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION OFFICIAL TITLE CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS ACT DESCRIPTIVE TITLE ESTABLISHING 5-MEMBER COMMISSION TO ADMINISTER ADDI- TIONAL ALTERNATIVE CAMPAIGN FINANCING SYSTEM; PROVIDING PUBLIC FUNDING AND ADDITIONAL REPORTING FOR PARTICIPAT- ING CANDIDATES; REDUCING CURRENT CONTRIBUTION LIMITS BY 20% FOR NON-PARTICIPATING CANDIDATES; SETTING PERSONAL MONIES AND SPENDING LIMITS FOR PARTICIPATING CANDIDATES; LIMITING PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PARTICIPATING CANDI- DATES UNLESS COMMISSION DECLARES EMERGENCY.

PROPOSITION 200

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of establishing a 5-member commission to administer an additional alternative campaign YES financing system which includes spending limits and public funding for participating candidates; additional reporting for all candidates, and reducing the current contribution limits for nonparticipating candidates by 20%.

A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current single system of campaign finance limits and reporting requirements NO for all candidates.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 92 Proposition 201 PROPOSITION 201 OFFICIAL TITLE AN INITIATIVE MEASURE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 13, CHAPTER 29 OF THE ARI- ZONA REVISED STATUTES RELATING TO COCKFIGHTING. TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT Be it enacted by the People of the State of Arizona: Title 13, Chapter 29 is proposed to be amended as follows if approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon and on proclamation of the Gover- nor: Sec. 1. Title 13, Chapter 29, A.R.S. is amended by adding new sections 13- 2910.03 and 13-2910.04, to read: § 13-2910.03. COCKFIGHTING; CLASSIFICATION A. A PERSON COMMITS COCKFIGHTING BY KNOWINGLY: 1. OWNING, POSSESSING, KEEPING OR TRAINING ANY COCK WITH THE INTENT THAT SUCH COCK ENGAGE IN AN EXHIBITION OF FIGHTING WITH ANOTHER COCK. 2. FOR AMUSEMENT OR GAIN, CAUSING ANY COCK TO FIGHT WITH ANOTHER COCK OR CAUSING ANY COCKS TO INJURE EACH OTHER. 3. PERMITTING ANY ACT IN VIOLATION OF PARAGRAPH 1 OR 2 TO BE DONE ON ANY PREMISES UNDER HIS CHARGE OR CON- TROL. B. COCKFIGHTING IS A CLASS 5 FELONY. C. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION AND SECTION 13-2910.04, COCK MEANS ANY MALE CHICKEN, INCLUDING GAME FOWL EXCEPT WILDLIFE AS DEFINED IN A.R.S § 17-101. § 13-2910.04. PRESENCE AT COCKFIGHT; CLASSIFICATION ANY PERSON WHO IS KNOWINGLY PRESENT AT ANY PLACE OR BUILDING WHERE PREPARATIONS ARE BEING MADE FOR AN EXHI- BITION OF THE FIGHTING OF COCKS, OR IS PRESENT AT SUCH EXHI- BITION, IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR. Sec. 2 Renumber Sections 13-2910.03 and 13-2910.04, Arizona Revised Statutes, are renumbered as 13-2910.05 and 13-2910.06 respectively. Sec. 3. Section 13-2910.05, A.R.S., as renumbered, is amended to read: § 13-2910.05. Exempt activities Activity involving the possession, training, exhibition or use of an animal in the otherwise lawful pursuits of hunting, ranching, farming, rodeos, shows and security services shall be exempt from the provisions of §§ 13-2910.01, and 13-2910.02, 13-2910.03 AND 13-2910.04. Sec. 4.. Section 13-2910.06, A.R.S., as renumbered, is amended to read: § 13-2910.06. Defense to cruelty to animals and bird fighting

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 93 Proposition 201

It is a defense to §§ 13-2910, 13-2910.01, and 13-2910.02, 13-2910.03 AND 13-2910.04 that the activity charged involves the possession, training, exhibition or use of a bird or animal in the otherwise lawful sports of falconry, animal hunting, rodeos, ranching or the training or use of hunting dogs. ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (In Compliance With A.R.S. Section 19-124) Proposition 201 would amend state law to create the crime of cockfighting by prohibiting a person from knowingly: 1. Owning, possessing, keeping or training a male chicken ("cock") with the intent that the cock fight with another cock. 2. Causing any cock to fight with or injure another cock for the amusement or gain of the person. 3. Allowing any of the above described acts to occur on the person's property. In addition, state law would prohibit a person from knowingly being present at a place where preparations are being made for a cockfight or where a cockfighting exhibition takes place. Cockfighting would be classified as a class 5 felony, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $150,000 and a possible prison term ranging from nine months to two years. Presence at a cockfight would be classified as a class 1 misdemeanor, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $2,500 and a possible jail term of up to six months. This proposition would extend existing state law animal cruelty exemptions and defenses that apply to lawful hunting, ranching, farming, rodeos and related activities to also apply to cockfighting. ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 201 It’s Time to End the Cruelty Hundreds and sometimes even thousands of roosters fight and die in a single week- end at Arizona’s 45 cockfighting pits. They are usually first injected with stimulants and they always have steel blades strapped to their legs. At the start of each fight, and when they stop fighting, the birds are held in each others face to make them angry. Whether this practice exists because some people enjoy watching animals die or because it makes gambling more interesting, it is clearly wrong. A “yes” vote on this measure would ban cockfighting. There are good reasons why most states banned this barbaric practice more than 100 years ago. It is obviously cruel. It is unhealthy for the children who are routinely brought to the fights. And it is bad for Arizona’s image to be a haven for animal fighting. Vote “yes” on Proposition 201. End the cruelty! Jamie Massey, Chairperson Citizens Against Cockfighting Tucson

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 94 Proposition 201 ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 201 VOTE ‘YES’ ON PROPOSITION 201 TO BAN COCKFIGHTING COCKFIGHTING IS CRUEL, BARBARIC, AND REPREHENSIBLE It is cruel and inhumane to set roosters against one another in a “pit” and force them to fight to the death. It subjects these animals to excruciating suffering for mere human entertainment. The American Veterinary Medical Association “condemns” cockfights. COCKFIGHTERS ATTACH KNIVES OR OTHER SHARP IMPLEMENTS TO THE BIRDS’ LEGS Cockfighters attach razor-sharp knives or gaffs (1 ½ to 3 inch blades curved like bay- onets) to the birds’ legs to diminish the likelihood of a long fight and to assure that spectators see blood. The knives and gaffs puncture lungs, gouge eyes, pierce heads and inflict all manner of injuries during fights, assuring that there are no winners in cockfighting. COCKFIGHTERS PUMP THE ANIMALS FULL OF STIMULANTS Cockfighters pump the birds full of stimulants to enhance their aggression and assure that they will attack one another in the pit. COCKFIGHTING SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE TO CHILDREN Encouraging children to watch cockfights desensitizes them to the suffering of animals. Children who are cruel to animals often direct their violent tendencies to people. HUMANE ADVOCATES, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS, CHILDREN’S ADVOCATES, HISPANIC ASSOCIATIONS, AND ARIZONA’S MAJOR NEWS- PAPERS OPPOSE COCKFIGHTING. The fights not only involve animal cruelty and desensitizing of children, but also drug use and gambling among spectators. That’s why so many organizations and groups support Proposition 201. The Arizona Republic (5/29/98) says cockfighting is “a terrible spectacle during which hapless combatants are bullied and bloodied for no good reason.” ARIZONA SHOULD BECOME THE 46TH STATE TO BAN COCKFIGHTING It is time for Arizona to ban this blood sport. THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES URGES A “YES” VOTE ON PROPOSITION 201 Paul G. Irwin, President Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice President The Humane Society of the Communications and Government Affairs United States The Humane Society of the United States Washington, DC Washington, DC

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 95 Proposition 201 ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 201 Argument For Proposition 201 On behalf of the Humane Farming Association, the nation’s largest farm animal issues organization, I join with members of Arizona’s law enforcement community, veterinarians, and other concerned citizens in urging a YES on proposition 201. Almost every state in the union has long ago outlawed cockfighting in order to prevent needless suffering, as well as to stop the criminal activity that has long been associated with cockfights. Don’t let those who profit from misery cloud the facts. The issue is clear. Cockfight- ing is a cruel and barbaric blood sport that has no place in a civilized society. Your vote can now be a powerful expression of compassion. Please vote YES on 201. Bradley S. Miller Cynthia Kaufman National Director Vice President The Humane Farming Association The Humane Farming Association San Rafael, California San Rafael, California ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 201 Argument “For” Proposition 201 I endorse the initiative to ban cockfighting in Arizona. I believe that cockfighting is a cruel bloodsport whose time has come and gone. In addition, I support the proposed ban because a variety of criminal activities including gambling, drug possession, rape, illegal weapon possession, and homicide have been associated with cockfighting. As a member of the law enforcement community, I want to voice my support for this measure. A cockfighting ban in Arizona will help curb this ongoing, associated criminal activity. Clarence W. Dupnik Tony Estrada Frank R. Reyes Pima County Sheriff Santa Cruz County Sheriff Pinal County Sheriff Tucson Nogales Florence Larry A. Dever Joe D. Richards Allen Williams Cochise County Sheriff Coconino County Sheriff Greenlee County Sheriff Bisbee Flagstaff Clifton Joe M. Rodriguez Ralph E. Ogden Marvin L. Hare Sr. Gila County Sheriff Yuma County Sheriff La Paz County Sheriff Globe Yuma Parker Tom Sheahan Mohave County Sheriff Kingman Paid for by Citizens Against Cockfighting; Jamie Massey, Chairperson

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 96 Proposition 201 ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 201 Argument “For” Proposition 201 It is the policy of the American Veterinary Medical Association that cockfighting is cruel and that it should be illegal in all 50 states. As veterinarians, we agree with this policy and urge you to vote Yes on Proposition 201. Cockfighting is cruelty to animals. The steel blades that are tied to the roosters’ legs puncture lungs and put out eyes. The losers die a very pointless death. Often the “winning” birds die of their injuries as well. We feel as our clients do. We are amazed that cockfighting is still legal in Arizona and that citizens have to go to such lengths to abolish this cruel and unnecessary practice. Yes on 201. Janet M. Forrer, DVM Donald L. DeShazer, DVM Alexander B. Koss, DVM Tucson Tucson Phoenix Michael P. Lent, DVM Jack E. Quick, DVM Randy Walker, DVM Tucson Tucson Chandler Clifford L. Wright, DVM Kristen E. Nelson, DVM Sophia Kaluziacki, DVM Kingman Kingman Green Valley Patricia Johnson, DVM Barbara L. Swahlen, DVM Paul Hurtado, DVM Phoenix Tucson Tucson Debra Agapito, DVM Irwin A. Ingram, DVM Mary K. Klein, DVM Mesa Scottsdale Tucson Paula Tyler, DVM Carl Wm. Oberg, DVM S. Bradley Fairall, DVM Benson Tucson Tucson Berney Mangone, DVM Michael J. Ames, DVM Chris Burgess, DVM Tucson Douglas Page H. Arlene Ross, MD John P. Lindsay, DVM Pam Clark, DVM Phoenix Bullhead City Bullhead City Debera Butler, DVM Tracy Wight, DVM Karen S. Claus Glendale Chandler Tempe Sandra Rogers-Vannett, Tim Ireland, DVM Rainy Teegerstrom, DVM DVM Tucson Tucson Prescott Candy D. Burton, DVM Jan Sauerwein Enderle, Jon R. Underwood, DVM Tucson DVM Dewey Mesa Sally C. Underwood, DVMJulia Lynn, DVM Dana S. Luse, DVM Dewey Prescott Valley Prescott Valley A. Annette Brunner, DVM Cheri Lynn Potter, DVM Judi Keller, DVM Prescott Valley Prescott Valley Tucson

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 97 Proposition 201

Rebecca L. Marche, DVM Kelly Moffet, DVM Kim R. Perkins, DVM Tucson Mesa Sierra Vista Paid for by Citizens Against Cockfighting; Jamie Massey, Chairperson ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 201 Argument In Favor of Prop. 201 Arizona’s leading newspapers are asking voters to say YES to Proposition 201, which would make cockfighting a crime. What do they say? • Cockfighting is cruel and uncivilized. The event involves strapping razor-sharp knives on the legs of birds, which are often drugged to make them more aggres- sive, and watching them slash each other to death … you, the humane reader, have a chance to end the nastiness” (The Arizona Republic, May 29, 1997). The Republic also recognizes cockfighting as “animal abuse” that “desensitizes children and adults to violence and suffering.” • If you thought cockfighting was illegal long ago, or should be, you’re not alone. Many Arizonans don’t realize this horrific spectacle that goes on routinely fea- tures curved steel knives on the bird’s legs to puncture lungs, break wings and leg bones, and gouge eyes. Yet it is still legal in Arizona - - one of only five states where this barbarity goes on.” (The Arizona Daily Star, February 9, 1998.) • “There can be no logical reason to continue allowing such a cruel and disgusting ‘sport’ to be practiced in Arizona.” (The Tucson Citizen, June 10, 1997). • ”The activity is cruel, vicious and inhumane. It exposes children to sanctioned cruelty to animals and many experts fear that ‘gambling on death’ can desensi- tize children to violence against animals.” (The Green Valley News and Sun, June 4, 1997.) • The Sun Times of La Paz County called cockfighting arenas its coverage area “a haven for gambling … regularly attended by children who witness the bloody massacre of animals.” The Mesa Tribune, The Scottsdale Progress Tribune and the Douglas Dispatch have also endorsed Proposition 201. End the cruelty, the bloodshed, the violence. Join Ari- zona’s leading newspapers and vote YES on Proposition 201. Douglas Tessendorf Kenneth D. White President Executive Director Arizona Humane Society Board of Arizona Humane Society Directors Scottsdale Mesa Paid for by the Arizona Humane Society; Kenneth D. White, Executive Director ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 201 Argument In Favor of Prop. 201 At long last, Arizona voters have the opportunity to ban the cruel blood sport of cockfighting by voting YES on Proposition 201.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 98 Proposition 201

Arizona is one of five states where this barbaric practice is still legal; where children can watch as birds are drugged with stimulants, fitted with steel blades and forced to fight to a bloody death before spectators, many of whom bet illegally on which bird will die first. By voting YES on Proposition 201, you are outlawing a blood sport which not only glorifies violence and killing in these increasingly violent times, but also desensitizes children to the needless suffering and death of innocent beings. And you are not alone. A 1997 survey by an independent polling firm found 80 percent of those questioned said they will support this initiative. Ninety percent said cockfighting is cruel and inhumane; 66 percent said cockfighting exposes children to violence and animal cruelty and teaches them that cruelty is okay; and 59 percent said “gambling on death” is not acceptable. The survey found support for the ban regardless of voters’ race, age, gender, political affiliation, education or income. In addition, the sheriffs of 10 Arizona counties support a YES vote on Proposition 201. They agree cockfighting is a cruel blood sport and believe it is linked to murder, rape, drug possession and other crimes. While some legislators have not made this issue a priority, Arizona voters have. More than 188,000 of you signed petitions so this initiative would be on the November ballot. With your approval, cockfighting will be a Class 5 felony - - the same as dog fighting in Arizona. Spectators at cockfights will be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. And Arizona will be among the majority of states where this barbaric practice is a crime. Kenneth D. White, Executive Director Philip Morton, Arizona Humane Society Vice-President For Finance Scottsdale The Arizona Humane Society Scottsdale ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 201 At a recent Executive Board Meeting, we discussed the subject of cockfighting in Arizona and we are in agreement with the position of the American Veterinary Medi- cal Association which is: the AVMA actively supports law against the use of dogs for dog fights and poultry for cock fights. Further, the AVMA recommends that dog fighting and cock fighting be considered a felony offense. The AzVMA agrees with this position statement. If you need further information, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Judy Grana Mark H. Trueblood, DVM Executive Director Past President, AzVMA Arizona Veterinary Medical Association Arizona Veterinary Medical Phoenix Association Glendale Paid for by the Arizona Humane Society; Kenneth D. White, Executive Director

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 99 Proposition 201 ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 201 MUJER, INC., a non-profit organization established in 1981, concentrates on making Hispanic women aware of the need to focus on modern-day issues. I am pleased to announce our support of the initiative to ban cockfighting in Arizona. We agree that cockfighting is a cruel and inhumane practice in which animals suffer and die for the pleasure of spectators. We agree that it exposes children to violence and animal cruelty and desensitizes children to animal suffering. We understand that it has been suggested that cockfighting is somehow a cultural issue for Arizona’s Hispanic Community. We are insulted by this suggestion. Ari- zona’s rich Hispanic Heritage will not be impacted by passage of this initiative. We believe that cockfighting is a cruel anachronism whose time has come and gone. As Hispanic citizens of Arizona, we want cockfighting made illegal! Gloria Dominguez Iris Garcia Maes President, MUJER, Inc. Board of Directors member, Phoenix MUJER, Inc. Chandler Paid for by Arizona Humane Society; Kenneth D. White, Executive Director ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 I oppose the initiative to ban cockfighting-Prop 201. America was founded on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the right to be different as long as it does not harm society. Not everyone desires to be a clone of the politically correct. We cause no harm to anyone and simply want to be left alone. A felony is a serious crime causing irreparable harm, damage to property, public endangerment or loss of human life. Yet abortion is not even a misdemeanor. The message seems to be that human rights have lower priority than those of birds. Birds being scientifically classified beneath animals. What’s wrong with this picture? Cockfighting and ownership a felony, but abortion’s acceptable? It is not a felony to own vicious dogs! Gamefowl do not kill people. Contrary to packaged propaganda and outright lies, we come from all walks of life and ethnic backgrounds. Hispanics being dominant in Arizona. No studies exist prov- ing any of the wild accusations maligning cockfighting such as causing criminal behavior or warping minds. I am a retired Marine and raise gamefowl as my hobby. I have observed firsthand that cocking around the world has zero impact on society. My children all grew up normal, all graduated . Sorry, no police records. We all love animals, having four dogs and three cats. No one chose my hobby, but my family affirms my right to practice cocking. Slaughter chickens are genetically mutated to grow full size in 45 days. Egg layers are stuffed in small cages, to live until a computer flags egg production down. Who weeps for them? Game roosters are first tested at two years. They cannot be forced to fight. All we do is physically condition them.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 100 Proposition 201

Affirm the Bill of rights and vote no! MSgt F. Allmendinger USMC Retired Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 Citizens of Arizona, please help a person understand why a few parasites can change my life and a long standing tradition. Should a person be able to live off of other people and not do anything but use misin- formation to keep the public so agitated that they don’t remember their priorities? What happened to battered children, the homeless, education, or our older generation that have been abandon? How can a chicken take precedence over these items? The only way management of the Humane Society make their six figure salary and large perks is by taking something insignificant such as chicken fighting and agitate the public to a furor. How many rights will we the public lose before we can’t hunt, fish, go to a rodeo, or even a boxing match? Remember most of us have fought and some died for our rights which are slowly being taken away by people who want nothing more than money in their pockets. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 201 John A. Parker Native Arizonan Officer in Green Berets Businessman Concerned Son of Arizona Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 Anti-cocking forces invariably base their campaigns on certain falsehoods concerning the character of the gamecock and the sport of cockfighting. One falsehood is that the cocks are trained to fight. Nothing could be less true. Game- cocks like all male chickens are genetically programmed to fight. A vast majority of the roosters that are killed or injured each year by fighting are not gamecocks but commercial breeding roosters in the henhouse. ALL roosters fight voluntarily. Game- cocks are never trained to fight! A second falsehood is that cocks are forced to fight. A little thought will show that this is impossible. Imagine trying to force two birds, say two hens or two canaries or two pigeons to fight. How would you go about it? You can’t threaten them. Male chickens fight spontaneously because they are genetically programmed to fight. Even in a formal cockfight, a cock can quit fighting at any time. Even the allegation that cockfighting is cruel is not based on any facts. Since the cocks fight spontaneously and continue to fight voluntarily despite injuries, isn’t that

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 101 Proposition 201 evidence that the cocks do no experience conscious pain such as a human would feel? Remember that the cock can quit fighting at any point in the fight. Many of the anti-cocking activists also oppose rodeo, hunting and fishing, falconry, and any commercial or medical use of animals. I believe that part of the reason is a radical and closed mindset that opposes all things rural and all rural traditions. Is it wrong to be suspicious of activists who find it necessary to use repeated misrepresen- tations to further their agenda? Because its basic premises and its rationale include several deliberate falsehoods, this Initiative Measure should be defeated. Donald P. Hollis, Ph.D Chehalis, WA ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 Against Initiative My wife and I have both served our country in the military; one in the Marines and one in the Air Force. I am a retired Police Officer. Both my wife and I are still employed full time in good positions. We raised 6 children; a doctor, a math profes- sor, a store manager, an ASU student graduating next spring, and another student graduating in 2 years as well as our newest graduate from ASU this last January...... 6 good kids out of 6! I have been familiar with gamefowl and cockfighting for forty years in various states and countries. I have learned that cockfighting is a part of a culture that has been handed down over the centuries. It has been a part of our own country’s early history. Gamefowl are wild birds, unlike the chickens they resemble. The males defend their flock, train the young by example and fight to survive. Each male must be penned separately due to their instinct to fight another male. These are the natural laws of the wild. I have raised gamefowl since I was 12 years old. I find that Gamefowl raising is more than a hobby for me. It is a commitment to maintain the ethical standards of the sport, to perpetuate a species that may become extinct, and to enjoy the friendships of fellow sportsmen. This initiative wants to make even the RAISING of gamefowl a FELONY! (Under the present law, a felony is a criminal activity such as criminal damage $2000 - $10,000; theft of property up to $2,000; theft of credit card or fraudulent schemes.) Protect the rights granted to all of us under our constitution and vote NO on this initiative Prop. 201 James H. Allen Mesa ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 Against Initiative In Arizona, gamefowl raisers include my husband, ranchers, school board members, policemen, millionaires, retired people, council members, mechanics, school bus drivers, carpenters, hobbyists and hundreds more from all walks of life. These are

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 102 Proposition 201 good Arizona families with children not involved in gangs or drugs. After their schoolwork, home chores and tending to their fowl...little idle time is left. The daily responsibilities of caring for their fowl builds character and self discipline. As an 30 year educator, I know how important a strong family life is. People who raise gamefowl add to the economy of our state. They buy feed, medi- cines, fencing, and numerous other items. They have contributed to the advance of science by finding and using new methods of medicating poultry which, in turn, they pass on to other poultry and bird producers. Most people involved in this sport and most people who attend the family oriented meets are ethical, honest people who respect and obey the laws of the state and country. They police their own. They do not tolerate drugs, or drug use, organized crime, prostitution or Anti-Americanism. Based on the right of freedom, I urge you to vote “No” . Prop 201. Joy Allen Mesa ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 I oppose the initiative to ban cockfighting In our state for a hundred or more years cockfighting has been a part of our history and culture along with horse racing, music, and great feasts; Cockfighting has never been a problem in Arizona. Arizona is a blend of many cultures and races and has been for all of it’s history.. Our state is thriving and growing because of our freedoms and rights. Do not vote to take away any of these freedoms. Your life style has never been effected by this sport nor will it ever be. This sport is not for everyone, if you don’t like it stay away. That is one of your rights, but please respect my rights, and think! Your rights may be up next. VOTE NO ON PROP NUMBER 201 Belton Hodges Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE INITIATIVE SO STOP COCK FIGHTING IN ARIZONA. THE ACTUAL FIGHTING OF THESE GAMECOCKS THAT ARE A SPECIAL BREED ORIGINATING IN THE JUNGLES AROUND THE WORLD IS ONLY A VERY SMALL PART OF THE HOBBY. WE RAISE THESE GAMECOCKS FROM THE EGG, THEY ARE GIVEN THE BEST POSSIBLY CARE THAT WE CAN GIVE THEM FROM THE DAY THEY ARE HATCHED THIS IS THE PART THAT WE ENJOY THE MOST. THESE COCKS ARE TWO YEARS OLD BEFORE THEY ARE CONSIDERED FOR FIGHTING BECAUSE THAT IS WHEN THEY ARE FULLY MATURED,

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 103 Proposition 201

SO WE HAVE SPENT TWO YEARS LOVING, ADMIRING, & NURTURING THESE COCKS. THE HARDIEST THING IS KEEPING THESE COCKS SEPARATE FROM OTHER COCKS BECAUSE CONTRARY TO WHAT THE ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUPS WOULD LIKE YOU TO BELIEVE THESE COCKS WOULD RATHER FIGHT THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN THEIR WORLD. IF PEOPLE REALLY UNDERSTOOD THESE COCKS THEY WOULD UNDER- STAND WHY WE LOVE AND ADMIRE THEM SO MUCH. WE DO NOT MAKE THEM FIGHT, IT SEEMS MORE CURL TO NOT ALLOW THEM TO FIGHT SOME TIME IN THEIR LIFE THAN IT DOES TO ALLOW THEM TO FIGHT. I HAVE ENJOYED THIS HOBBY FOR TWENTY FIVE YEARS I AM IN A MANAGEMENT POSITION OF A VERY LARGE BUSINESS IN PHOENIX. FEEDING AND NURTURING THESE COCK HAS BEEN A GREAT STRESS RELIEVER FOR ME I DO NOT DRINK OR USE DRUGS, I HAVE RAISED TWO CHILDREN THAT ANY PARENT WOULD BE PROUD OF, I HAVE NEVER BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME MORE SEVERE THAN A SPEEDING TICKET. THESE ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUPS WANT TO MAKE IT A FELONY TO RAISE AND FIGHT THESE COCK, THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THEM FROM US SO THEY CAN KILL THEM AND MAKE THEM EXTINCT. DOES THIS SEEM RIGHT ??? Clifford Osborn Buckeye ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 I am in opposition to initiative # 201 I would like to clarify a few misconceptions. Fighting cocks are not forced to fight, they are hatched with this natural biological function. Chickens do not make true pets. They are incapable of giving or receiving any of the emotions and feelings dogs, cats, and other mammals are capable of sharing and therefore are not comparable to these animals. Families that raise game fowl and attend competitions are not desensitized. Most families that attend cockfights are close knit, still living and teaching "good old fash- ioned American values” that are now so socially unpopular. Cockfighters do not raise serial killers and rapists. Contrary to popular accusations, Ted Bundi, Jeffery Daummers, Charles Manson etc. were not affiliated with nor did they ever attend a cockfight. Instead of making your favorite professional athlete, doctor, teacher, friend at church or neighbor a felon, please vote “NO” on proposition # 201 that will cause even owning these fowl to be a felony and the fowls themselves to be euthanized. Russell Mortensen Phoenix

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 104 Proposition 201 ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 In opposition to Initiative #201 We have a right to choose and these advocates are out right telling us what we can do and what we can’t do. These people that fight game fowl spend hundreds and thousands of dollars in taxes buying feed, medical books and supplements, bands, vac- cines, pen scales, etc. We as Mexican-Americans have fought in wars to defend our country and we will keep on fighting for our rights. We are within our rights and I as a feed store owner, make a living out of these game fowl and I myself pay thousands of dollars in taxes and permits. Ramon Trujillo Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 I’m writing this letter to voice my opposition to the initiative-banning cockfighting in Arizona, because this “Initiative” violates my basic human right to pursue happiness the way I choose to. It also suppresses my tradition and cultural heritage. My country of origin is the Philippine Islands. Just as football to America, bull fighting to Spain and soccer to the majority of the world, cockfighting is a cultural pastime that brings the community together. Why are White, Massey et al trying very hard to ban “Our” sport? We are just a small group minding our own business! Why can’t White, Massey et al ban hunting (deer & turkey), or boxing? Are Mr. Charlton Heston and Don King too big to handle? Are these “The Sports” of the civilized society? Quoting Mr. White on TV last week, “Cockfighting has no place in a civilized society”. What is he talking about, a lot of “B.S.” What about kids shooting and killing kids with guns, youngsters smoking cig- arettes? I think White, Massey et al have a misdirected priority. They should devote their efforts and money to the more serious human problems we have now. There are millions of dogs and cats that “They” kill each year. The bottom line is these poor animals are dead too, of a humane way. I can imagine what will happen if White, Massey et al would try to ban football in America. To me, football is the American culture sport. Compared to “Our” sport, I have never heard and seen any human death or suffering directly related to cockfighting. I have never been affected in any negative way by cockfighting. I am a caring and loving father of seven wonderful children, who all are mostly professionals, as well as, a caring and loving physician. This is very much to the contrary to the beliefs of Mr. White, Massey et al. G. P. Abaqueta, M.D. Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 To the Citizens and Voters of Arizona, In regards to the cockfighting initiative, what is a CLASS 5 FELONY? The following qualify as a class 5 felony which has a maximum fine of $150,000 and a maximum penalty of two years in state prison.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 105 Proposition 201

- custodial interference - e.g. in a divorce, one parent takes a child across state lines, without court approval, and refuses visitation to the other parent. - criminal damage to property, the value of which is more than $2000 and less that $10,000. - credit card fraud - computer fraud in the 2nd degree - accessing, altering, or damaging a computer system without authorization. - taking the identity of another person - name, birth date, Soc. Sec. number with the intent of using the identity for unlawful purposes. - obstructing a criminal investigation or prosecution. - influencing a witness. - a juror receiving a bribe - rioting The above seem to be crimes of fraud against other people, or the judicial system. Does cockfighting belong in this category? Do chickens have more rights than humans? Do you want your tax dollars spent chasing cockfighters or criminals? Vote “NO” on this Initiative.- Prop. 201 Daniel G. Pelzer Mesa ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 I oppose this Initiative # 201 Cockfighting is not a felonious act. Twenty-three times in the last 30 years these humaniacs have gone to the legislature and demanded that their animal rights agenda be fulfilled and cockfighting be made a felony. Twenty-three times the legislature listened to their lies and decided that Arizonans would not fall for them. Our legislature decided 23 times that personal freedom was the most precious gift our fore fathers gave to us and no special interest group should have the right to take away our personal freedom. The legislature showed great wisdom and courage 23 times - I ask you, the Arizona voters to show it one more time. Raylene Maldonado Tolleson ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 I oppose the “Ban Cockfighting Initiative”. - Prop. 201 Being an Hispanic American revised in southwest Arizona and as a son of a farm labor family known as Campesinos,living in this country has always seemed a privilege. Being a third generation cockfighter with roots which extend into northeastern Mexico, I have a always enjoyed the right to raise, train, and fight my fowl wherever

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 106 Proposition 201

I like. If this initiative is approved, I and my family will lose a deep rooted part of my heritage and part of the freedom which my father fought for and believed in, Slowly this country is being overrun by people or organizations such as the animal rights group. These people have never been around roosters or a rooster fight, yet they feel they can dictate to us what we can and cannot do - even if it means sending hardworking members of our community and their families to jail. This initiative will not only destroy part of my heritage but will in fact create a burden on the “Taxpay- ers” in the state of Arizona. As we stand, the legislators are asking for more money to increase our jail and prison facilities. Jailing a cockfighter for helping a game cock do what it likes to do seems to me , ridiculous and barbaric. “GOD HELP AMERICA” IT NEEDS IT. Richard Vela Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 In opposition to the initiative to ban cockfighting. Prop. 201 Do not burden our over worked, under paid law enforcement officers with another unnecessary law. Let them use their time and our money on apprehending murders, rapist, child molesters etc., the real felons. Since territorial days there is little or no record of trouble caused by the people participating in the sport of cockfighting. Cockfighting is just the first domino, next will be rodeos, hunting, fishing, etc. DON’T HELP TAKE THE WEST OUT OF ARIZONA. Allene Hodges Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 To the people of Arizona, The proposed initiative to amend Title 13 Chapter 29 of the Arizona revised statutes will cost Arizona tax payers untold dollars in trying to enforce this proposed change, a change for what? Arizona is a great State lets leave it the way it is. Law enforcement people tell us intent is the most difficult crime to prove particularly when the use of gamecocks for fighting is often in another nation. This new law would prohibit raising and exporting gamecocks to Mexico and many other countries if they were to be fought. Again, do-gooders want another felony on the books when in fact gamecocks will not fight if they don’t want to. Abraham Lincoln, who was a reported referee of cockfighting; thus nicknamed “Honest Abe” said it best when asked to outlaw cockfighting during his term as pres-

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 107 Proposition 201 ident of the United States, he said, “When two men can enter a ring and beat each other senseless far be it from me to deny gamecocks the same privilege.” Currently in Arizona there are crimes against people that do not bear the penalty proposed for the intent to allow two gamecocks to fight if they so choose. Vote no on this proposed amendment. - Prop 201 Larry T. Mathews Founder, United Gamefowl Breeders Association Salem, Oregon ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 Arizonians, The people of Arizona have a great opportunity to stop big money organizations like the Human Society of the United States, and the millions they collect from the unin- formed, by voting no on the proposed amendment to Title 13 Chapter 29, which would make outlaws out of many of Arizona’s law alluding citizens by making cock fighting a felony. A felony for allowing two birds to fight? Whose the victim in this so called crime? Arizonians would be once again asked to spend literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in policing if this initiative were to pass, our jails are full now! Lets direct our attention and tax dollars to people issues. Vote no on the Title 13 Chapter 29 amendment. - Prop 201 Bob White President / CEO Colombian Fence Co. Sandy, Oregon ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 To the Voters of Arizona; Arizona Citizens need to fight for the rights given them under the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution gives us the right to be different, without being penalized. The animal rights activists want a society where everyone agrees with their opinion. They want the citizens of Arizona to finance the enforcement of their opinion on others. That is the purpose of the Amendment to Title 13. The animal rights activists have publicly stated their opposition to cockfighting, as well as the following: animal research, use of animals in testing cosmetics, dissection; commercial trapping, hunting, fishing, the breeding of companion animals, including pedi- greed or purebred dogs and cats; dog racing, rodeos, circuses, the confinement systems of livestock production (and poultry farms) and want a reappraisal of the use of animals in zoos and aquariums. In other words, they want us all to be vegetarians, and believe no animal should be used for entertainment or consumption purposes, and that animals are equal to, or have a value greater than, human life. This amend-

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 108 Proposition 201 ment is only the beginning of the agenda that they have set for the people of Arizona. By, supporting this amendment, you are giving the animal rights activists their police force. They will be spending taxpayers money for their own gain and one by one they will make all of the above listed, illegal activities. If you participate in, or support any of the above activities, or believe in the right to have your opinion, Vote “No” on Ini- tiative # 201. There are other issues in our state where I would prefer to see my tax dollars spent (i.e.. education, roads, community services). Do not turn what are currently law abiding individuals into criminals, at the expense of the taxpayers. Vote “NO” so your tax dollars may be spent more wisely. Eileen B. Curran Chandler ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 I oppose this anti-cockfighting Initiative # 201 Cockfighters are the most diverse group of people I have ever been associated with. We are young, we are old. We are Black, White, Hispanic, and Oriental. We are doctors, lawyers, laborers, letter carriers, housewives, teachers, locomotive engineers, and farm workers. We are Veterans and active military and we are active members of our communities. We are not felons. This initiative is nothing more than special interest groups attempting to introduce their animal rights agenda into Arizona law. Gloria P. Harris Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 I oppose the Initiative # 201 In 1942, I was saved. In 1945, I was filled with the Holy Ghost and delivered from smoking, swearing, cockfighting, and drinking. I have pastored four churches, 5 years as Pastor of a skid row mission and evangelized. I loved the chickens and God said “thou shalt have no other gods before me”. (From the cockpit to the pulpit) After 53 years, I still admire game chickens. I do not understand how people who know nothing about cockfighting can bring a initiative to deny this privilege. They say in the initiative a cockfighter shall be a Class 4 Felon punishable by 2 years in jail, $135,000.00 fine. A felon cannot vote, serve in the military, own property forever. If you are a spectator, a woman with a babe in arms, a small child or an old man, no difference you are guilty of a misdemeanor, 6 months in county jail and a 2,500.00 fine. It shows their ruthless concern for any one who loves game chickens. Please do yourself a favor vote NO on this initiative. God Bless you is my prayer. Rev. James S. Mecham Phoenix

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 109 Proposition 201 ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 To the citizens and voters of Arizona: I am concerned that big money persons are taking away the rights and part of a minority heritage cockfighting. What will be next? Your language in your own home? A dog on a leash? Own a horse? These are the things the Arizona Humane Society are trying to do at this time. Cock- fighting is only the first of many. Please don’t let persons who have no idea about our sport take it away. Kathy Brogdon Tolleson ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 I oppose the Initiative #201 Cockfighting is the most ancient of sports. All of the great societies of the past 5000 years have had a great influence on our sport. The Phoenicians and the Greeks were the first to use artificial spurs to equalize the battle. The greatest leaders our country ever had were cockfighters, etc: Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln. These were the men who wrote the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. The greatness of these men and their contribution to American is indisputable. Whether or not you like cockfighting, I ask you to think about our history and the people that have participated in it. Do you think this is a felonious act or a sport that the Animal Rights zealots are trying to convince you to stop? David A. Harris Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 ARGUMENT “AGAINST” This amendment will create a number of problems not only for our state but for the people of Arizona. The expenditures in cost and time of our law enforcement agencies will be borne by the state taxpayers. Jails are already overcrowded and this amendment would only make the situation worse. Law abiding citizens that have not caused any problems, will be made into criminals. All due to a handful of people that oppose this activity. Keep in mind that these people are backed by an organization from Washington D.C. whose members do not live in our state. This is another example of people coming from outside of Arizona and attempting to change our laws and then leave the state. If you value the right to raise and have animals of your choice then vote “NO” on this amendment. Warren Glick Tempe

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 110 Proposition 201 ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 I oppose the initiative to ban cockfighting. Prop 201 Rape, murder, and child abuse, these are just a few crimes faced by the people of Ari- zona and the under staffed, under funded law enforcement agencies. Arizona has the 4th largest jail system in America. So let’s add another crime, cock fighting. Arizona has enough crime without making new criminals. Where will the funding to prosecute and try all of the people who raise or fight game fowl come from? Arizona courts are overcrowded. We cannot police the crime we have, let’s make felons out of everyday hardworking law-abiding citizens who not only fight game fowl, but raise them for a hobby. Cockfighting has been a culture and a tradition for many Arizona families, I’m third generation. If this law passes, the average person will not be affected, but many families will awake the next morning, felons. What will happen to all the game fowl if this becomes law? Will we follow Califor- nia’s example? Euthanize (kill) them because they are game fowl. “Because the birds were not suitable as pets or for any other purpose other than fighting, they were euthanized Tuesday.” (source “Officers seize breeder’s 45 fighting cocks” Ling, Michelle.) There are thousands of game fowl in Arizona. From a scientific stand- point, with society’s goal to keep endangered species alive for genetic reasons, isn’t it a mistake to euthanize a whole species? The Humane Society sent us letters against rodeos, hunting, fishing, dog racing, people letting their pets have babies, the meat industry, zoos, circuses, women who take Premarin, and other biomedical testing. Who’s next, rodeo, hunting, fishing, horse, dog and pigeon racing, pet ownership, zoos, circuses, sick people relying on animal testing for cures and treatments? Too many people today have their priorities crossed, people should be first! James F. Phelps Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 201 Against Initiative 4 years ago, a proposition similar to this initiative was sent to the legislature by the same people who propose this. The difference was that it was designed to restrain hunting and fishing because some people did not care for those activities. Somehow boxing, wrestling and football were not included because they only injure humans. 4 years ago the proposition was soundly defeated because legislators heard a big public outcry from Arizona citizens who recognized a threat to the American concept of freedom. How much regulation and restraints should be placed on the average citizen’s individual freedom?

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 111 Proposition 201

This year, the principle seems to be DIVIDE AND CONQUER. First come the gamefowl. Who will be next? We hunters? We fishermen? G. David Wagner Mesa

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 112 Proposition 201 BALLOT FORMAT PROPOSITION 201 PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION OFFICIAL TITLE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 13, CHAPTER 29 OF THE ARI- ZONA REVISED STATUTES RELATING TO COCKFIGHTING. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE MAKING COCKFIGHTING A CLASS 5 FELONY FOR KNOWINGLY OWNING, POSSESSING, KEEPING OR TRAINING A COCK FOR COCK- FIGHTING; CAUSING ANY COCK TO FIGHT OR INJURE ANOTHER COCK FOR AMUSEMENT OR GAIN, OR ALLOWING COCKFIGHTING ON A PERSON’S PROPERTY; MAKING IT A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR FOR BEING PRESENT AT A COCKFIGHT.

PROPOSITION 201

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of making cockfighting a class 5 felony and being present at a cockfight a class 1 misdemeanor. YES

A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining cockfighting as a non-criminal activity. NO

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 113 Proposition 202 PROPOSITION 202 OFFICIAL TITLE AN INITIATIVE MEASURE AMENDING TITLE 16, CHAPTER 4, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 6.1; RELATING TO THE VOLUNTARY DECLARATION BY CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND FOR THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS OF THEIR POSITION CONCERNING ELIMINATION OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX, ABOLITION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND ENACTMENT OF A NATIONAL CONSUMPTION TAX; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY.

TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT Be it enacted by the people of the State of Arizona: The following amendments are proposed to become valid when approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon and upon proclamation of the Gover- nor of the State of Arizona. SECTION 1. TITLE. THIS ACT SHALL BE KNOWN, AND MAY BE CITED, AS THE “I.R.S. ELIMINATION PLEDGE ACT OF 1998”. SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE. A. THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN ENSURING ITS CITIZENS ARE INFORMED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF EACH PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION ABOUT THE POSITIONS HELD BY CANDIDATES FOR ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICE, BOTH STATE AND FED- ERAL, ON ISSUES OF SIGNIFICANCE TO ARIZONA VOTERS. AMONG THE ISSUES OF SIGNIFICANCE TO THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA IS THE POSITION OF THE CANDIDATES FOR ELECTED FEDERAL OFFICE ON A LEGISLA- TIVE PROPOSAL TO REPLACE THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX WITH A NATIONAL CONSUMPTION TAX, DEFINED GENERALLY AS A TAX IMPOSED ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE RETAIL SALES OF ANY TAXABLE PROPERTY OR SERVICE SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES BUT NOT INCLUDING A TAX CALCULATED AT A FLAT OR FIXED RATE ON PERSONAL OR CORPORATE INCOME, AND THEREBY TO ABOLISH THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. B. IT IS THE INTENTION AND DESIRE OF THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA IN ENACTING THIS MEASURE BY INITIATIVE TO PROVIDE AN EFFEC- TIVE MEANS OF INFORMING ARIZONA VOTERS ABOUT THE POSITION OF ALL CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND FOR THOSE SEEKING ELECTION TO A SEAT IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE OR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA BY REQUESTING A VOLUNTARY DECLARATION FROM EACH SUCH CANDIDATE OF HIS OR HER INTENTION, IF ANY

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 114 Proposition 202

THEY HAVE, TO ADVOCATE AND VOTE FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE EXISTING FEDERAL INCOME TAX AND THE ABOLITION OF THE INTER- NAL REVENUE SERVICE THROUGH THE ENACTMENT OF A NATIONAL CONSUMPTION TAX, AND THE DISCLOSURE OF THAT INTENTION ON THE FACE OF THE BALLOT FOR THE ARIZONA PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION UNTIL SUCH A CONSUMPTION TAX MEASURE BECOMES THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Title 16, Chapter 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding Article 6.1, to read: ARTICLE 6.1. VOLUNTARY I.R.S. ELIMINATION PLEDGE 16-502.01 FORM OF DECLARATION. A. ANY PERSON WHO IS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR FOR SENATE OR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA MAY, BUT NEED NOT, SUBMIT TO THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA NO LATER THAN SIXTY (60) DAYS BEFORE A PRIMARY ELECTION AND NO LATER THAN TWENTY (20) DAYS BEFORE A GENERAL ELECTION AN EXECUTED COPY OF THE I.R.S. ELIMINATION PLEDGE DESCRIBED BELOW. IF A CANDIDATE FOR ANY SUCH OFFICE DOES NOT SUBMIT A DECLARATION IN THE FORM PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ANY COUNTY WITHIN THE STATE OF ARIZONA SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON, REFUSE TO PLACE THE NAME OF THE CANDIDATE ON THE OFFICIAL BALLOT. I.R.S. ELIMINATION PLEDGE PART A: “I, ______, VOLUNTARILY TAKE THE I.R.S. ELIMINATION PLEDGE, AND HEREBY CONFIRM MY PLEDGE IN WRITING.

______SIGNATURE OF CANDIDATE DATE”

BY TAKING THE “I.R.S. ELIMINATION PLEDGE”, SUCH CANDI- DATE SHALL MEAN THAT, IF ELECTED, HE OR SHE WILL ADVOCATE AND VOTE FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX AND THE ABOLITION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE THROUGH THE ENACTMENT OF A NATIONAL CONSUMPTION TAX. IF THE CANDIDATE HAS EXECUTED THE DECLARATION SET FORTH IN PART A, HE OR SHE MAY, BUT NEED NOT, EXECUTE AND CONCURRENTLY SUBMIT TO THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA THE FOLLOWING VOLUNTARY STATEMENT IN PART B: PART B: “I, ______, AUTHORIZE AND REQUEST THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO PLACE THE APPLICA- BLE BALLOT DESIGNATION ‘SIGNED THE I.R.S. ELIMINATION PLEDGE’ NEXT TO MY NAME ON EVERY ELECTION BALLOT AND IN

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 115 Proposition 202

ALL STATE-SPONSORED VOTER EDUCATION PAMPHLETS IN WHICH MY NAME APPEARS AS A CANDIDATE FOR ANY ELECTED FEDERAL OFFICE.

______SIGNATURE OF CANDIDATE DATE” B. IF A CANDIDATE FOR ANY OF THE ELECTED FEDERAL OFFICES DESCRIBED IN THIS MEASURE HAS SUBMITTED AN EXE- CUTED DECLARATION IN THE FORM SET FORTH IN PART A OF THIS SECTION, AND THAT CANDIDATE IS NOT ELECTED TO THE OFFICE WHICH HE OR SHE SOUGHT, THEN SUCH EXECUTED DECLARATION WILL NOT BE IN EFFECT FOR ANY FUTURE ELECTION. SUCH CAN- DIDATE MAY SUBMIT AN ADDITIONAL EXECUTED I.R.S. ELIMINA- TION PLEDGE FOR ANY FUTURE PRIMARY AND, IF APPLICABLE, GENERAL ELECTION. C. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALL COUNTIES WITHIN THE STATE OF ARIZONA SHALL PLACE ON THAT PART OF THE OFFI- CIAL BALLOT FOR BOTH THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE NAME OF EACH CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR FOR ELECTION TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS, WHO HAS EXECUTED AND SUBMITTED TO THE ARIZONA SECRETARY OF STATE WITHIN THE TIME HEREIN REQUIRED FOR THE PRIMARY AND, WHERE APPLICA- BLE, GENERAL ELECTION THE EXECUTED DECLARATIONS SET FORTH IN BOTH PART A AND PART B OF THIS SECTION THE FOL- LOWING WORDS: “SIGNED THE I.R.S. ELIMINATION PLEDGE”. IN ADDITION, THE BOARD OF SUPERIVOSRS AND ARIZONA SECRE- TARY OF STATE SHALL, AS THEIR RESPECTIVE STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES SHALL REQUIRE, PLACE THE WORDS QUOTED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING SENTENCE ON THAT PORTION OF ALL COUNTY- AND STATE-SPONSORED VOTER EDUCATION PAM- PHLETS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE NAME OF EACH CANDI- DATE FOR EACH OF THE FEDERAL ELECTED OFFICES IDENTIFIED HEREIN WHO HAS EXECUTED AND SUBMITTED BOTH PARTS A AND B OF THIS SECTION AS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION. D. NO CANDIDATE FOR ANY OF THE FEDERAL ELECTED OFFICES IDENTIFIED IN THIS MEASURE SHALL HAVE MORE THAN ONE DECLARATION IN EFFECT FOR ANY ELECTED OFFICE AT THE SAME TIME. IN ADDITION, SUCH A CANDIDATE MAY ONLY EXE- CUTE AND SUBMIT PART B OF THE I.R.S. ELIMINATION PLEDGE IF PART A THEREOF IS OR HAS BEEN EXECUTED AND SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE PRIMARY AND, WHERE APPLICABLE, GENERAL ELECTION. 16-502.02. STANDING. ANY RESIDENT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA SHALL HAVE STANDING TO DEFEND ITS PROVISIONS IN A COURT OF COMPE- TENT JURISDICTION.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 116 Proposition 202

16-502.03. SEVERABILITY IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS MEASURE IS DECLARED INVALID BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, SUCH INVALIDITY DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER PROVISIONS THAT CAN BE GIVEN EFFECT WITHOUT THE INVALID PROVISION AND TO THIS END THE PROVISIONS OF THIS MEASURE ARE DECLARED TO BE SEVERABLE. ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (In Compliance With A.R.S. Section 19-124) Proposition 202 would amend state law to allow, but not require, an Arizona candidate for United States President, the United States Senate or the United States House of Representatives to pledge to advocate and vote for the elimination of the federal income tax and the abolition of the federal Internal Revenue Service through the enactment of a "national consumption tax". A candidate who makes such a pledge would be allowed to have the designation "Signed the I.R.S. Elimination Pledge" placed next to the candidate’s name in the voter publicity pamphlet and on the primary and general election ballots. ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 202 ARGUMENT FOR “THE IRS ELIMINATION PLEDGE ACT” We must replace our outdated and anti-growth tax code. Despite numerous ‘reforms,’ the tax code is more complex for citizens to comply with than ever. Most importantly, taxes are just too high! In 1950, the average U.S. household paid $7,000 in taxes annually, but by 1995 the average had risen to nearly $20,000 in taxes. The share of workers’ paychecks devoted to federal, state, and local taxes rose from about 23 percent in 1950 to almost 40 percent by 1995. Tax burdens like this discourage savings, investment and work, and are a drag on economic growth. The IRS also has enormous powers. It can gain access to the most personal financial information of Americans. And, unfortunately, the IRS is one of the most error-prone federal agencies, supplying inaccurate information to taxpayers almost 20 percent of the time. All of these abuses will continue until we fundamentally change the tax system. Poli- ticians should display their commitment to this issue next to their names on the election ballot. The “IRS Elimination Pledge Act” will make politicians “go public” with their commitment to real reform. Vote Yes on Proposition Number 202. Matt Salmon Chairman, Arizonans for Fair Tax Reform Mesa ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 202 Argument for “The IRS Elimination Pledge Act” The income tax code allows politicians in Washington to divvy out favors to special interests that ensure their tenure in government. Prior to 1913, the average Member

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 117 Proposition 202 of Congress served two terms and the overall Congressional budget was under $3 million dollars. Today we have over a $3 trillion deficit with no end to government spending in sight. Only when the American people have first rights to their own money will Congress restrain its insane spending habits. We are currently being taxed upwards of 60% of our income with a myriad of hidden taxes and fees wrought upon us by Washington. It costs the federal government 65 cents to collect $1 from the American worker. The citizens of Arizona have the chance to take the lead by encouraging our political leaders to make the right move and give us real tax reform. We need to return to the indirect method of taxation advocated by our Founding Fathers. It makes good economic sense and will allow Americans to be once again competitive in the foreign market place, while stimulating our own economy, encouraging savings and investments, creating new jobs and opportunities for all our fellow citizens. Most importantly, by eliminating the IRS and income tax we restore our freedom and privacy. I encourage everyone to vote Yes on Proposition 202 “The IRS Elimination Pledge Act” and send the strongest message to Congress that we Arizonans are ready for real tax reform. Richard D. Mahoney Treasurer, Arizonans for Fair Tax Reform Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 202 ARGUMENT FOR “THE IRS ELIMINATION PLEDGE ACT” The income tax and IRS are a national disgrace. The income tax code is so compli- cated that even people of very modest means need to hire experts to help prepare their taxes. Even IRS agents can’t agree on interpretations of the tax code. Special interest and large corporate lobbyists convince Congress to deal out allow- ances and tax breaks, redistributing the taxpayers’ hard-earned money into corporate welfare and big-government boondoggles. Busybody activists push Congress to amend the tax code, “engineering” our behavior to fit their ideals. While they’re spending our money, the average American’s paycheck is leeched of roughly 40% of earnings, forcing almost everyone to run in place, on a “paycheck-to-paycheck” treadmill. Meanwhile, the IRS continues its “reign of terror:” seizing properties and life savings; destroying small businesses; snooping and prying into our private affairs; con- ductings Inquisition-like audits, wherein we are presumed guilty until proven innocent. We can change all this. The IRS and income tax can be replaced with a tax on the consumption of goods and services, collected by the states (which already collect state sales tax) and forwarded on to Washington. There are numerous proposals for doing this, but they’ll never get a fair hearing. The politicians know the present system gives them the power to control our economic and personal decisions. It’s what enables them to be career politicians. We must hold the politicians’ feet to the fire. We must make them commit to ridding us of the un-American IRS--in writing--and display this commitment next to their

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 118 Proposition 202 names on the election ballot. We must no longer let them get away with empty promises and phony rhetoric. Vote Yes on Proposition Number 202. Jeffrey A. Singer Co-Chairman, Arizonans for Fair Tax Reform Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 202 ARGUMENT FOR "THE IRS ELIMINATION PLEDGE ACT" My husband and I have three young boys. Like most American families, we find ourselves so overburdened by our unfair tax system that we have to work longer and longer hours to make enough “take home” pay to meet our obligations. This means we have to sacrifice precious time with our children--quality time that cannot be replaced, especially during their early formative years. My husband and I are reduced to the roles of two strangers, racing past each other on the way to jobs and errands, while our children spend too much time in the care of babysitters. The tax system is destroying the American family, and as a result, threatens the stability of our civiliza- tion. The 85 year experiment with a tax system that has been corrupted by special interests must come to an end. American households struggle to keep their budgets balanced, while the politicians and special interest groups spend 40% of every dollar working men and women earn. And we have no control over the money we earn. They tell us how much of it we can keep. Meanwhile, nobody controls the special interests. With a consumption tax it’s the other way around--we tell the politicians how much of our money they can have, based upon how much money we choose to spend. It’s time to take back control over our income. It’s time to tell special interests that we won’t let the next generation of children be deprived of the nurturing home environment they deserve. Make the politicians commit on tax reform. And have their positions dis- played next to their names on the election ballot. Lip service isn’t good enough any- more. Vote Yes on Proposition 202. “The IRS Elimination Pledge Act.” Lori Klein Executive Director Citizens for an Alternative Tax System- AZ Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 202 ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 202 “The IRS Elimination Pledge Act” As a tax practitioner I have had a unique opportunity to see the Federal income tax system in action. Honest United States citizens being crushed by an income tax system with more than 17,000 pages of law and regulation. It has been said that the income tax system makes “cheaters” of us all. But more often, the income tax system makes “criminals” of law-abiding citizens who cannot begin to understand the current tax code. Further, individuals and corporations spend countless hours and bil- lions of dollars to try to comply with these complex tax laws.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 119 Proposition 202

The Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) is the federal agency given the job of administering the Internal Revenue Code and collecting the revenue generated. The IRS, however, does not itself understand the Internal Revenue Code with its various economic, social, and political agendas. Further, many IRS employees have their own agendas and resort to illegal tactics in voilation of taxpayers’ rights. The recent description of IRS abuses are representative of an agency out of control and accountable to no one. That agency needs to be closed down! Citizens of Arizona have an opportunity to strike a blow for freedom. Freedom from a complex, unfair, burdensome tax system with unreasonable compliance costs. Freedom from a tax system which hides the total tax burden from the taxpayers. Freedom from a tax system which robs taxpayers of more than 60% of their earnings without any choice. And freedom from an oppressive tax collector often operating both outside and above the law, and ignoring taxpayers’ basic rights. A Yes vote for Proposition 202 is a first step to restoring the freedom and right to privacy stolen by the Federal income tax system. Steven D. Morford, Chairman Arizonans for Fair Tax Reform Scottsdale ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 202 The Secretary of State did not receive arguments against Proposition 202.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 120 Proposition 202 BALLOT FORMAT PROPOSITION 202 PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION OFFICIAL TITLE AMENDING TITLE 16, CHAPTER 4, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 6.1; RELATING TO THE VOLUNTARY DECLARATION BY CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND FOR THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS OF THEIR POSI- TION CONCERNING ELIMINATION OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX, ABOLITION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND ENACTMENT OF A NATIONAL CONSUMPTION TAX; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVER- ABILITY. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE GIVING ARIZONA CANDIDATES FOR FEDERAL OFFICES THE OPTION TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT AND VOTE FOR ELIMINATION OF THE FED- ERAL INCOME TAX AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE THROUGH THE PASSAGE OF A NATIONAL CONSUMPTION TAX; PERMITTING “SIGNED THE I.R.S. ELIMINATION PLEDGE” TO BE SHOWN ON THE BALLOT NEXT TO PLEDGING CANDIDATES’ NAMES. PROPOSITION 202

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of establishing an optional pledge for candidates for federal offices and the words “Signed YES the I.R.S. Elimination Pledge” shown on the ballot for candidates who sign the pledge.

A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current can- didacy filing system for federal candidates, which does not NO include an optional I.R.S. Elimination Pledge.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 121 Proposition 300 PROPOSITION 300 OFFICIAL TITLE REFERENDUM PETITION REFERENDUM ORDERED BY PETITION OF THE PEOPLE AN ACT AMENDING SECTION 13-3412, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING SECTION 13-3412, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED BY SEC- TION 1 OF THIS ACT; REPEALING SECTION 13-3412.01, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 34, ARIZONA REVISED STAT- UTES, BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 13-3412.01; RELATING TO DRUG OFFENSES; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONAL ENACTMENT.

TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Section 13-3412, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 13-3412. Exceptions and exemptions; burden of proof; privileged communications A. The provisions of sections 13-3402, 13-3403, 13-3404, 13-3404.01 and 13-3405 through 13-3409 do not apply to: 1. Manufacturers, wholesalers, pharmacies and pharmacists under the provisions of sections 32-1921 and 32-1961. 2. Medical practitioners, pharmacies and pharmacists while acting in the course of their professional practice, in good faith and in accordance with generally accepted medical standards. 3. Persons who lawfully acquire and use such drugs only for scientific purposes. 4. Officers and employees of the United States, this state or a political subdivision of the United States or this state, while acting in the course of their official duties. 5. An employee or agent of a person described in paragraphs 1 through 4 of this subsection, and a registered nurse or medical technician under the supervision of a medical practitioner, while such THE employee, agent, nurse or technician is acting in the course of professional practice or employment, and not on his own account. 6. A common or contract carrier or warehouseman, or an employee of such THE carrier or warehouseman, whose possession of such drugs is in the usual course of business or employment. 7. Persons lawfully in possession or control of controlled substances authorized by title 36, chapter 27. 8. Persons who sell any non-narcotic NONNARCOTIC substance that under the federal food, drug and cosmetic act may lawfully be sold over the counter without a prescription.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 122 Proposition 300

9. The receipt, possession or use, of a controlled substance included in schedule I of section 36-2512, by any seriously ill or terminally ill patient, pursuant to the prescription of a doctor in compliance with the provisions of section 13-3412.01. B. In any complaint, information or indictment and in any action or proceeding brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter the burden of proof of any such exception, excuse, defense or exemption is on the defendant. C. In addition to other exceptions to the physician-patient privilege, information communicated to a physician in an effort to procure unlawfully a prescription-only, dangerous or narcotic drug, or to procure unlawfully the administration of such A PRESCRIPTION-ONLY, DANGEROUS OR NAR- COTIC drug, is not a privileged communication. Sec 2. Section 13-3412, Arizona Revised Statutes, as amended by section 1 of this act, is amended to read: 13-3412. Exceptions and exemptions; burden of proof; privileged communications A. The provisions of sections 13-3402, 13-3403, 13-3404, 13-3404.01 and 13-3405 through 13-3409 do not apply to: 1. Manufacturers, wholesalers, pharmacies and pharmacists under the provisions of sections 32-1921 and 32-1961. 2. Medical practitioners, pharmacies and pharmacists while acting in the course of their professional practice, in good faith and in accordance with generally accepted medical standards. 3. Persons who lawfully acquire and use such drugs only for scientific purposes. 4. Officers and employees of the United States, this state or a political subdivision of the United States or this state, while acting in the course of their official duties. 5. An employee or agent of a person described in paragraphs 1 through 4 of this subsection, and a registered nurse or medical technician under the supervision of a medical practitioner, while the employee, agent, nurse or technician is acting in the course of professional practice or employment, and not on his own account. 6. A common or contract carrier or warehouseman, or an employee of the carrier or warehouseman, whose possession of the drugs is in the usual course of business or employment. 7. Persons lawfully in possession or control of controlled substances authorized by title 36, chapter 27. 8. Persons who sell any nonnarcotic substance that under the federal food, drug and cosmetic act may lawfully be sold over the counter without a prescription. 9. SERIOUSLY ILL OR TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS WHO RECEIVE, POSSESS OR USE A SCHEDULE I DRUG PURSUANT TO THE PRESCRIPTION OF A DOCTOR IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVI- SIONS OF SECTION 13-3412.01.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 123 Proposition 300

B. In any complaint, information or indictment and in any action or proceeding brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter the burden of proof of any exception, excuse, defense or exemption is on the defendant. C. In addition to other exceptions to the physician-patient privilege, information communicated to a physician in an effort to procure unlawfully a prescription-only, dangerous or narcotic drug, or to procure unlawfully the administration of a prescription-only, dangerous or narcotic drug, is not a privileged communication. Sec.3. Repeal Section 13-3412.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is repealed. 13-3412.01. Prescribing for seriously ill and terminally ill patients; definitions A. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, including the federal food, drug and cosmetic act (21 United States Code sections 301 through 395) and the controlled substances act (21 United States Code sections 801 through 904), any physician who is licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 13 or 17 may prescribe a schedule I drug to treat a debilitating disease or to relieve the pain and suffering of a seriously ill patient or terminally ill patient. In prescribing a schedule I drug pursuant to this section, the physician shall comply with professional medical standards.

B. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, including the federal food, drug and cosmetic act (21 United States Code sections 301 through 395) and the controlled substances act (21 United States Code sections 801 through 904), a physician who is licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 13 or 17 shall document that scientific research exists which supports the use of the schedule I drug to treat a debilitating disease or to relieve the pain and suffering of a seriously ill patient or terminally ill patient before prescribing the schedule I drug. A physician who prescribes a schedule I drug pursuant to this section shall obtain the written opinion of a second physician that the prescribing of a schedule I drug is appropriate to treat a debilitating disease or to relieve the pain and suffering of a seriously ill patient or terminally ill patient. The written opinion of the second physician shall be kept in the patient’s official medical file. Before prescribing, the physician shall receive the written consent of the patient. C. The allopathic board of medical examiners or board of osteopathic examiners in medicine and surgery may investigate any physician who fails to comply with the provisions of this section and may discipline the physician. D. For the purposes of this section: 1. “Seriously ill” means suffering from a debilitating or life threatening condition. 2. “Terminally ill” means a person who is seriously ill and who will die as a result of that illness. Sec. 4. Title 13, chapter 34, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section 13-3412.01, to read: 13-3412.01. PRESCRIBING FOR SERIOUSLY ILL AND TERMI- NALLY ILL PATIENTS; DEFINITIONS A. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, INCLUDING THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG AND COSMETIC ACT (21

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 124 Proposition 300

UNITED STATES CODE SECTIONS 301 THROUGH 395) AND THE CON- TROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT (21 UNITED STATES CODE SECTIONS 801 THROUGH 904), ANY PHYSICIAN WHO IS LICENSED PURSUANT TO TITLE 32, CHAPTER 13 OR 17 MAY PRESCRIBE A SCHEDULE I DRUG TO TREAT A DEBILITATING DISEASE OR TO RELIEVE THE PAIN AND SUFFERING OF A SERIOUSLY ILL PATIENT OR TERMI- NALLY ILL PATIENT. IN PRESCRIBING A SCHEDULE I DRUG PURSU- ANT TO THIS SECTION, THE PHYSICIAN SHALL COMPLY WITH PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL STANDARDS. B. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, INCLUDING THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG AND COSMETIC ACT (21 UNITED STATES CODE SECTIONS 301 THROUGH 395) AND THE CON- TROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT (21 UNITED STATES CODE SECTIONS 801 THROUGH 904), A PHYSICIAN WHO IS LICENSED PURSUANT TO TITLE 32, CHAPTER 13 OR 17 SHALL DOCUMENT THAT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH EXISTS WHICH SUPPORTS THE USE OF THE SCHEDULE I DRUG TO TREAT A DEBILITATING DISEASE OR TO RELIEVE THE PAIN AND SUFFERING OF A SERIOUSLY ILL PATIENT OR TERMI- NALLY ILL PATIENT BEFORE PRESCRIBING THE SCHEDULE I DRUG. A PHYSICIAN WHO PRESCRIBES A SCHEDULE I DRUG PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL OBTAIN THE WRITTEN OPINION OF A SEC- OND PHYSICIAN THAT THE PRESCRIBING OF A SCHEDULE I DRUG IS APPROPRIATE TO TREAT A DEBILITATING DISEASE OR TO RELIEVE THE PAIN AND SUFFERING OF A SERIOUSLY ILL PATIENT OR TERMI- NALLY ILL PATIENT. THE WRITTEN OPINION OF THE SECOND PHYSI- CIAN SHALL BE KEPT IN THE PATIENT’S OFFICIAL MEDICAL FILE. BEFORE PRESCRIBING, THE PHYSICIAN SHALL RECEIVE THE WRIT- TEN CONSENT OF THE PATIENT. C. THE ALLOPATHIC BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OR BOARD OF OSTEOPATHIC EXAMINERS IN MEDICINE AND SURGERY MAY INVESTIGATE ANY PHYSICIAN WHO FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION AND MAY DISCIPLINE THE PHY- SICIAN. D. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION: 1. “SERIOUSLY ILL” MEANS SUFFERING FROM A DEBILITAT- ING OR LIFE THREATENING CONDITION. 2. “TERMINALLY ILL” MEANS A PERSON WHO IS SERIOUSLY ILL AND WHO WILL DIE AS A RESULT OF THAT ILLNESS. SEC. 5. CONDITIONAL ENACTMENT SECTIONS 2 AND 4 OF THIS ACT DO NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE UNLESS THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS AUTHORIZES THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA OR UNLESS THE FEDERAL FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRA- TION AUTHORIZES THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA AND THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION RESCHEDULES MARIJUANA TO A SCHEDULE OTHER THAN SCHEDULE I. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL NOTIFY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ARIZONA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE DATE ON WHICH THE CONDITION IS MET.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 125 Proposition 300

APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR APRIL 21, 1997 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE APRIL 21, 1997. ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (In Compliance With A.R.S. Section 19-124) In 1996, the voters passed the Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996. The Act allowed medical doctors to prescribe 116 Schedule I drugs, including heroin, LSD, marijuana and certain analogs of PCP to treat a disease or to relieve the pain and suffering of a seriously ill or terminally ill patient. After the 1996 Act passed, the State Legislature enacted House Bill 2518. Before the 116 Schedule I drugs could be prescribed by a doctor, House Bill 2518 requires marijuana to be authorized by the federal food and drug administration or be authorized by the United States Congress. This proposition and the 1996 Act would condition- ally allow a doctor to prescribe a Schedule I drug to seriously ill or terminally ill patients. Before prescribing a Schedule I drug, the doctor would have to document that scientific research supports the use of the drug and would have to obtain from a second doctor a written opinion that prescribing the drug is appropriate. A patient who receives, possesses or uses the drug, as prescribed by a doctor would not be subject to state criminal penalties. If this proposition passes, doctors could begin prescribing Schedule I drugs, including heroin, LSD, marijuana and certain analogs of PCP, only after the federal food and drug administration approves or the United States Congress authorizes the medical use of marijuana or reclassifies marijuana as a drug that doctors can prescribe. If this proposition does not pass, under state law doctors could continue to prescribe Schedule I drugs, including heroin, LSD, marijuana and certain analogs of PCP, without any further authorization from Congress or the FDA. ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 Arizona Pharmacy Association Ballot Proposition Statement The Arizona Pharmacy Association urges a YES vote on Proposition 300, keeping HB 2518 in effect. Broadly legalizing all Schedule 1 substances, i.e. LSD, methamphetamine, heroin, and marijuana, is not in the best interest of patients and society. It is bad health care policy. Obtaining Schedule 1 substances is through illegal means, i.e. drug dealers who cannot ensure purity or efficacy. Federal law prohibits the formation of a distribution system, further encouraging illegal channel usage. Substances identified in Schedule1 are defined to have high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. They lack accepted information on the safety of their use, even under medical supervision. Providing individuals with a legal defense for possessing illicit substances is not valid to warrant repeal of HB 2518. The Association urges federal officials to conduct more extensive research of marijuana’s medicinal value. Marijuana has been used to treat a variety of disease states/ symptoms, but there’s insufficient data supporting widespread use. Science should direct our actions. This is NOT about denying patients access to Schedule 1 drugs to alleviate the pain and suffering of “seriously ill” or “dying patients.” Proposition opponents want illicit

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 126 Proposition 300 drug legalization for everyone. Protect yourself, family, and community by voting YES on Proposition 300 to maintain HB 2518. Nancy Alvarez, Pharm.D. Ken Cross, R.Ph. Legislative Chair President Arizona Pharmacy Association Arizona Pharmacy Association Tempe Tempe ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 Just say No to Legalizing Drugs Vote “YES” on Prop 300 Just ask yourself: “Why would anyone object to having a drug go through the normal scientific testing to insure that it is safe and effective before a doctor can prescribe it?” “Why don’t they tell you that the drugs they want to make available include heroin, PCP, LSD, methampethemines and more than 100 other drugs that are currently illegal?” In the two years since passage of Proposition 200, evidence has continued to mount that the “medical marijuana” theme is a Trojan Horse for legalization efforts. It is clear that this proposition is not about providing marijuana to the sick and elderly; it is about legalization of drugs. Richard Cowan, a vocal advocate for the drug legalization movement, is on record with statements which can be summarized as follows: The key is medical access; once we have medical access, then we will get full legalization. As the drug movement proceeds through different states, we see a step-wise escala- tion of strategies aimed at full legalization. In Washington State, the initiative provided that all Schedule I drugs--including heroin--could be obtained without a prescription. In Oregon, an effort to sell marijuana through liquor stores is ongoing. In Florida, the push is to give immunity to drug dealers. The would-be drug legalizers in Arizona now operate under the banner of an organization named “The People Have Spoken.” In fact, the people of Arizona have never spoken in favor of legalizing heroin, LSD, PCP, methamphetamine or marijuana. I encourage the people of Arizona to speak now--speak loud and clear: SAY NO TO THE LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS. VOTE YES ON PROP 300. Richard M. Romley Maricopa County Attorney Scottsdale

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 127 Proposition 300 ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 PROPOSITION 300 RESPONSE Arizona voters must carefully consider if they want to legalize heroin, LSD, PCP, methamphetamine and marijuana, even without medical evidence that these street drugs are safe or effective as medicine. This is the devious objective of wealthy individuals and special interest drug legalization groups that have spent millions of dollars to influence ballot propositions that take a major step toward drug legalization. The drug legalization advocates claim they only want heroin, methamphetamine, LSD and other schedule I drugs legalized for medical use, but they are unwilling to go through the normal Food and Drug Administration testing process that all drugs must undergo before they can be sold to the public. Why are they doing this? What are they hiding? Why are they unwilling to go through the established scientific process that ensures new medical drugs are safe and effective? The answer is simple. Drug legalization advocates know that heroin, LSD, PCP, methamphetamine and more than 100 other drugs have been classified as schedule I drugs because they are highly addictive, dangerous crude street drugs that lack medicinal value. The citizens of Arizona have a great opportunity in this election to voice their opposition to legalization of dangerous drugs--to send the message that drugs are destructive and to oppose the legalization of heroin, methamphetamine, LSD, PCP and other Schedule I drugs. Do not allow a wealthy group of legalization advocates take away your right to have heroin and other Schedule I dangerous street drugs scientifically tested before they can be classified and used as “medicine.” Vote YES on proposition 300 to keep scientific testing and to protect the health and safety of all Arizonians. Calvina L. Fay Terry Hensley Secretary/Treasurer Executive Director S.O.S. Save Our Society From Drugs S.O.S. Save Our Society From Drugs St. Petersburg, FL St. Petersburg, FL ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 There is a drug problem in both Arizona and the nation which concerns many voters. During the past four years there has been a debate over the legalization and medicalization of Schedule I drugs which are considered dangerous by the federal government. There are more than one hundred of these illegal drugs, including heroin, methamphetamine, PCP, LSD, and marijuana. People addicted to these drugs are prone to neglect themselves, their responsibilities, their families, their friends, and their jobs. The use of dangerous drugs is a special concern of employers and employees as it poses a serious safety problem. Their use harms not only the individual users, but also their fellow employees. Scientific research underscores the cost of drug abuse at work as it is reflected in substantially more workplace accidents, worker absences, and decreased productivity.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 128 Proposition 300

We support the present system which requires that before any Schedule I drugs can be prescribed for medical purposes, they have to undergo scientific testing and approval by the Food and Drug Administration. This guarantees that they be safe and effective before they can be used. Proposition 300 provides an opportunity for voters to express their views and make a statement on drugs. We urge Arizonans to vote YES on Proposition 300. A YES vote will retain the important requirement of scientific testing of Schedule I drugs that is necessary for the health and safety of all of us. David C. Iwanski Executive Vice President Agri-Business Council Of Arizona, Inc. Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 I strongly support a yes vote on Proposition 300. As an anti-drug activist in Arizona since the early part of 1980 I can clearly recognize the influence of the pro-drug legalization lobby’s agenda in the strategy of those in Arizona that wish to “medicalize” Schedule 1 drugs, drugs of no medical value and a high potential for abuse. There are those who would use “junk” science and anecdotal evidence to support their argument and use compassion as justification to circumvent the Drug Enforce- ment Administration’s (D.E.A.) scheduling process of drugs. For many years now the strategy of those who wish to legalize illicit drugs have gathered support and money for their strategy to normalize and medicalize illicit drugs which should remain Schedule 1 drugs. The “red herring” they have chosen is “medical” crude marijuana and now all Schedule 1 drugs which we now see here in Ari- zona. Remember laetrile? That was the concoction of crushed apricot pits that was touted as a cancer cure 25 years ago and when put before the court of public opinion, more than half the states legalized its use. The current rush to medicalize crude marijuana is an example of unproved “medicine” again being put before the court of public opinion and the response to anecdotal evidence. To use a quote by a doctor who was involved in the testing of laetril at the time of the furor, Dr. Charles Moertel of the Mayo Clinic said, “We have assumed proportions that no other quack medicine has assumed before.” It would appear that history is about to repeat itself with the medicalization of crude marijuana and other Schedule1 drugs. Please join those of us in the drug prevention community who see through the smoke screen used by the pro-legalization advocates. Alex J. Romero Phoenix

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 129 Proposition 300 ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 In Support Of Proposition 300 There is a major drug crisis in our country and it seems to get worse everyday. Indi- viduals who become addicted to these drugs suffer physical, moral, and psychological harm. In some cases the use of dangerous drugs results in deaths. In many other cases, however, individuals addicted to drugs can not fulfill their daily responsibilities and duties and their actions hurt their families, their schools, and their neighborhoods. Moreover, the threat of dangerous drugs is one of the most serious problems facing our children today. It is important that we send a strong message to our children and grandchildren of where we stand on the use of dangerous drugs. This unequivocal message is that we don’t want them to try or use marijuana, heroin, or any other lethal drugs and that we are opposed to the legalization and medicalization of all so-called Schedule I drugs. There are over one hundred of them, including marijuana, heroin, LSD, and methamphetamine. Our message is to say no to the use of such debilitating substances. The battle against drugs is a battle for our children. It is a fight to underscore what is right and what is wrong. By working together, we can ensure that the lives of our children are safe, more productive, and free of the drugs that can cripple our minds and destroy our souls. We the people have the opportunity to express our views on drugs and to record our opposition to the legalization and medicalization of marijuana, heroin, LSD and the more than one hundred Schedule I drugs. We can send a message that these drugs are destructive and should not be used. To keep the present system and to say no to drug legalization, vote YES for Proposition 300. Nathan Sproul Executive Director Arizona Christian Coalition Tempe ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE STATEMENT ON PROPOSI- TION 300 There is a scourge in our state -- it is the escalating drug problem. The use of dangerous drugs has wreaked havoc on individuals, families, communities, and schools. Those addicted to drugs suffer physical and psychological harm. Drug use is associated with increases in crime, including homicides and property theft. Members of the law enforcement community have to struggle with the problems caused by these drugs on a daily basis, as do emergency medical personnel who treat victims. Of particular concern is a class of lethal drugs that are listed as Schedule I drugs by the federal government. There are more than one hundred drugs on this list, the best known being heroin, LSD, marijuana, methamphetamine, and PCP. At present the Food and Drug Administration tests all drugs for safety and effectiveness before they can be used.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 130 Proposition 300

The position of our organization on drug legalization and medicalization is as follows: “The Arizona Association of Chiefs is opposed to the legalization of marijuana and Schedule I drugs without federal (FDA and DEA) approval using bona fide medical and scientific standards.” Proposition 300 gives voters an excellent opportunity to express their views on this timely and important problem. Because we believe in the need for medical and scientific testing that is provided in our current system, we support a YES vote on Propo- sition 300. A YES vote is necessary for the health and safety of all Arizona adults and children. T.J. DeBoer D. A. Dobrotka Executive Director Executive Committee Member Arizona Association of Chiefs of PoliceArizona Association of Chiefs of Police Phoenix Glendale ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 For the past several years there has been a battle over the legalization of more than 100 illicit drugs of abuse for “medicinal use.” All of these drugs of abuse are on a list called Schedule I, and some have names we recognize pretty quickly: heroin, LSD, PCP, methamphetmine, and marijuana. Sadly, we recognize some of these drugs because they’re being grown and “cooked” -- right now -- in our own neighborhoods, and they’re causing such critical problems for our schools, workplaces, and communities. Without the scientific testing and procedural safeguards that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval brings us, these are the substances our families will consume as “medicine.” As Drug Prevention and Education Program providers serving Arizona employers, employees and their families, we know full well the outcomes of drugs of abuse. Studies report that in the workplace, drugs of abuse are involved in 3.6 times more workplace accidents, 5 times more workers’ compensation claims, 2.5 times more absences, and a 33% decrease in productivity. In a Gallup Organization survey of Arizona employees, measuring the impact drugs of abuse have on the workplace, 65% of employees responded that drugs of abuse affect productivity, 61% considered these drugs to pose a safety problem, 50% said they affect crime on the job, and 43% said drugs of abuse “seriously affect” their “ability to get the job done.” We support Arizonans Against Heroin and the 87% of registered voters in Arizona who said in a recent poll that drugs of abuse should be required to go through rigorous testing to ensure they are safe and effective. Vote “YES” on Proposition 300 to support a safe, healthy, and prudent approach to medical use of controlled substances. Linda MacLeish-Jensen Susan Jones Vice President and COO Director Counseling & Family Resources- Drugs Don’t Work in Arizona! EAP Preferred Phoenix Phoenix

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 131 Proposition 300 ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 ARGUMENT FOR PROPOSITION 300 There is a drug crisis in our country and it is getting worse. The use of dangerous drugs causes physical and psychological harm, and is associated with increases in crime, particularly homicides and property and postal theft offenses. A recent report by the Arizona Center for Health Statistics documents substantial increases in the number of deaths in both urban and rural Arizona over the past ten years from the use of cocaine type, morphine type, and other drugs. People addicted to drugs neglect their duties, their families, their education, and their jobs. Drug problem solutions should not be confined solely to the federal government, the state legislature, special interest groups, or wealthy individuals who can spend millions of dollars on ballot propositions. Proposition 300 encourages the people to speak in 1998 and gives an opportunity to send a message to all citizens, our young people, and children on where we stand on dangerous drugs. A yes vote on Proposition 300 registers a message of no on the legalization of drugs like heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana, LSD, and other Schedule One Drugs unless and until these drugs undergo rigorous scientific testing to be sure that they are safe and effective before doctors can prescribe them. What is at stake here is the very fabric of our state and country. It is about commitment and what we are going to become and what message we send to our children and grandchildren. A yes vote on Proposition 300 lets the people decide and to say no to the use of dangerous drugs. John McCain Jon Kyl U.S. Senator U.S. Senator Phoenix Phoenix Bob Stump Jim Kolbe Member Of Congress Member Of Congress Phoenix Tucson Matt Salmon John Shadegg Member Of Congress Member Of Congress Tempe Phoenix J. D. Hayworth Member Of Congress Mesa ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 Propostion 300 Vote YES As business leaders, parents and fellow Arizona citizens we encourage you to vote yes on proposition 300, which requires FDA approval for prescription use of Sched- ule One drugs, including Heroin, Methamphetamines, PCP, and LSD. When the prevalence of drug abuse and addiction increases, crime rate goes up, prison population rises, and neighborhoods deteriorate as consumers stop shopping in

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 132 Proposition 300 areas where they no longer feel safe. In addition, productivity and growth decrease overall when drug use increases in the workplace. The impact of drugs can be seen in families, where poverty, child abuse and neglect very often result from drug abuse and addiction. All the above issues not only result in a lower standard of living, but also lead to additional financial and tax burden, hinder opportunities and the quality of life for future generations. We must unite and prevent Heroin, Methamphetamines, LSD, and PCP from circulating freely and eventually becoming as easily accessible as alcohol is now. We can’t let that happen. For these reasons we appeal to you to vote yes on proposition 300. Michael J. Minnaugh John Peterson President, Peak Insurance Group Chief Operation Officer, Paradise Valley Peak Insurance Group Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 I urge you to support Proposition 300, as someone who is against the legalization of Heroin, LSD, PCP, Crystal Meth and other hard core street drugs. This measure works at attacking the systems of drug addiction by getting addicts proper treatment and make them sober once again. It establishes drug courts in each county to address cases of drug dependent individuals charged with possession or use of illegal drugs. The purpose of drug courts is to have the judicial system work together toward the common goal of breaking the cycle of drug abuse and its corresponding criminal behavior. It also allows judges to revoke the probation of drug defendants if they violate the terms of their drug treatment and rehabilitation. In many instances the only successful way to wean addicts off of Heroin, PCP and Crystal Meth is the threat of prison. Without that threat, many of these addicts will thumb their noses at judges and continue to commit crimes to obtain money to purchase the drugs to feed their drug habit. This measure also ensures that violent drug addicts with previous felony convictions would not be eligible for automatic probation and drug treatment. Obviously, previous attempts for such criminals to clean up their act have failed and the need to lock them up and protect the public is clear. Proposition 300 is part of a two-prong effort by the state to send a message to the illegal drug dealers and millionaire dope pushers that the citizens of Arizona will not tolerate their attempts to turn our state into a playground for their ill-gotten gains by letting criminal drug addicts off the hook for the crimes they commit while high on Heroin, LSD, PCP, and Crystal Meth. Vote yes on Proposition 300. John Kaites, Senator Glendale

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 133 Proposition 300 ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 I urge you to vote “yes” on Proposition 300. Illegal drugs and the related health traumas, crime and costs to the family are without a doubt the unrelenting tear in the fabric of society. Every year drug abuse kills 14,000 Americans and costs taxpayers nearly 70 billion dollars. Illegal drugs are a primary factor in nearly 90% of Arizona’s child abuse and neglect cases, and more than 50% of spousal murders are related to drug use. Dangerous drugs such as heroin and cocaine have caused a 41% increase in emergency room drug incidents in Phoe- nix. Injection drug users account for more than 22% of Arizona’s AIDS cases. People addicted to drugs neglect and often destroy their families, their jobs, and their lives. A “yes” vote on Proposition 300 protects Arizona from the legalization of drugs like heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana, LSD, and other Schedule One Drugs unless and until these drugs undergo rigorous scientific testing to be sure that they are safe and effective before doctors can prescribe them. A “yes” vote on Proposition 300 sends the message to all citizens, especially our young people and children, that Arizona stands strong against dangerous drugs. For our future’s sake, please vote “yes” on Proposition 300. Jane Dee Hull Governor Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 VOTE YES ON PROP 300 There is a serious national drug problem affecting all segments of society. Our sports community is no exception, as drug abuse has shortened or ended promising athletic careers in many sports at the professional, intercollegiate, and high school levels. Drug abuse prevents athletes from performing to their full potential. In a few cases it has resulted in premature deaths. Those of us in the sports world want to send a message to all adults and children about the dangers of drug abuse that can cause physical and psychological harm. Those who are addicted often ruin their careers and neglect their responsibilities, their families, and their children. Of special concern are the many drugs on a federal government list called Schedule I. They include drugs like heroin, methamphetamine, LSD, PCP and marijuana. Unfortunately, they are both imported to and manu- factured in many Arizona neighborhoods. Because of the lethal potential of these drugs, we believe that before any Schedule I drugs can be legalized or used for medical purposes, they should undergo stringent scientific testing and approval. This testing is currently done by the Food and Drug Administration, and it ensures that drugs are safe and medically beneficial before they can be used. In the election of 1998, voters will be given the opportunity to send their own message on drugs. To encourage a safe and sound drug use policy, we urge all Arizonans to vote YES on Proposition 300. A YES vote will keep the current and essential

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 134 Proposition 300 requirement for scientific testing of potentially dangerous drugs before they can be used. Bryan Colangelo Michael Bidwill The Phoenix Suns The Arizona Cardinals Phoenix Tempe Richard Dozer Shawn Hunter The Arizona Diamondbacks The Phoenix Coyotes Phoenix Phoenix Paid for by Arizonans Against Heroin; Stan Barnes, Jr., Chairman ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 SENATOR SOLOMON STATEMENT ON PROPOSITION 300 The drug problem in both Arizona and the country is a very serious one. It affects all areas of society, but as a long-time educator, I am particularly concerned about its impact on our children and our schools. For most middle and high school students the concept of a drug-free society is a contradiction in terms. For many, schools are a place where dangerous substances like alcohol, heroin, LSD and other drugs are sold by classmates on school grounds. The National Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse has published a recent study with a number of alarming statistics on drugs in our schools and of its negative impact on learning. In it, a national survey of both teenagers and their parents rate illegal drugs as the single most serious problem our teenagers face. Drugs not only harm the individual users, but also their families, schools, and communities. The drug problem is a complex one that requires continual efforts in education, prevention, and interdiction. Since there are no single or simple solutions, we must evaluate carefully all actions we undertake.. One such action is the so-called medicalization of Schedule I drugs like heroin, methamphetamine, LSD, and marijuana. Our action in this area sends a message to our children of where we stand on drugs. Proposition 300 provides voters an opportunity for voters to register their views. I believe that the present system of scientific testing and approval of drugs by the Food and Drug Administration before they can be used is necessary for both our health and safety. A yes vote supports this system and requires that drugs be safe and effective before they can be used. Show our children we care and vote yes on Proposition 300. Ruth Solomon State Senator, District 14 Tucson Paid for by Arizonans Against Heroin; Stan Barnes, Jr., Chairman ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 Argument “For” Proposition 300 As Chairman of Arizonans Against Heroin, I ask all Arizonans to join with me in voting “Yes”on Proposition 300.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 135 Proposition 300

Proposition 300 was placed on the ballot by those who wish to make dangerous street drugs like heroin, PCP, and LSD legal and widely available. I believe the majority of Arizonans stand against such a policy. The concerned citizens who have gathered together under the banner of “Arizonans Against Heroin” want the voters of Arizona to know how important this ballot question is to our future. There is an enormous amount at stake, as the eyes of the nation watch Arizona to see if street drug legalization is a concept supported by the tradi- tionally conservative voters of our great state. Do not be deceived. Proposition 300 is not about compassion for the sick and it’s not a referendum on the political leaders at the Arizona Legislature. Proposition 300 is about legalizing deadly street drugs. It’s a question of the keeping drugs like heroin off our streets and out of our schools. It’s a question of the hope we have for our children and their health and safety. As a father, I know the fear parents have when confronted with the prospect of sending children into a harsh and selfish world. As a parent, I don’t want to make it any tougher for my kids than it already is. On Election Day, Arizonans have the chance to strike a blow against those who would make illicit drugs legal and more available for children. Please vote yes on Proposition 300. Stan Barnes Jr. Chairman, Arizonans Against Heroin Mesa

ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 There is a drug crisis in Arizona and it could get worse. In recent years there has been a political battle in our state over the legalization and medicalization of more than one hundred dangerous drugs. All of these drugs are on a federal governmental list called Schedule I. Some of these drugs are very well known, like heroin, LSD, PCP, methamphetamine, marijuana, while others are less well known. These drugs are both transported to and grown in many of our Arizona communities. Their use causes problems for individuals, families, schools, workplaces and neighborhoods. As a medical practioner, I have taken an oath to help people according to the best of my ability and judgment, but never with a view towards injury and harm. I believe that before any Schedule I drugs are prescribed for medical purposes, they should undergo rigorous scientific testing and approval. This scientific testing and procedural safeguards are provided by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which tests all drugs for safety and effectiveness before they can be used. Before any drug can be used on the market, rigorous testing is needed to ensure that it is safe and effective. As a practioner of medicine, I support the scientific testing and safeguards of the present system.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 136 Proposition 300

For these reasons, I urge my fellow citizens to vote yes on Proposition 300. A yes vote will maintain the necessary requirement for scientific testing of potentially dangerous drugs and will support a safe, healthy and prudent approach to drug use. Richard Horne M.D., Ph.D. Paradise Valley Paid for by Arizonans Against Heroin; Stan Barnes, Jr., Chairman ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 We support and urge a YES vote to keep the protections given to all Arizonans by HB 2518. A YES vote is necessary for the continued safety and health of Arizona’s people. Simply, HB 2518 repealed a provision that would have allowed heroin, LSD, PCP and other dangerous, highly-addictive Schedule 1 drugs to be legally available by prescription in Arizona. It added a conditional enactment provision for the (as yet, scientifically-unsubstantiated) medical use of smoked marijuana that would allow it to be available by prescription only in the event that the U.S. Congress authorized such medical use of marijuana or if the Food and Drug Admininstration, after research and testing, authorized such use and the Drug Enforcement Administration rescheduled marijuana from being a Schedule 1 drug. The historically effective safeguards, that have served us well in the past, should be allowed to continue to protect Arizonans. Prop. 300 and its out-of-state promoters continue to try to use Arizona to advance a pro-legalization agenda. This agenda will not only impact Arizona employees and employers but all Arizona citizens, young and old. This should not be tolerated by any of Arizona’s citizens. We should not tolerate such a threat to workplace safety and productivity and our way of life. We hope you will not tolerate it either - that you will say YES to a safe, drug-free and healthy Arizona. C.E. Edwards Executive Director Arizonans For A Drug-Free Workplace Tucson Paid for by Arizonans Against Heroin; Stan Barnes, Jr., Chairman ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 Support Proposition 300 From a public health prospective, drugs that are administered in the United States must go through a rigorous review process by the Food and Drug Administration. A “yes” vote fore Proposition 300 will ensure that this process continues. Proposition 300 proposes that all Schedule I Drugs must have FDA approval before they are prescribed by physicians. Currently all drugs on Schedule I (marijuana, LSD, heroin, and others) are deemed to have no medicinal value. Before these drugs and many more are available for the public, the Food and Drug Administration should test and approve them. The goal of the Food and Drug Administration is to

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 137 Proposition 300 improve the public health and quality of life by approving drugs that have medicinal value. Schedule I drugs should not be administered without Food and Drug Administration approval. Supporting Proposition 300 will maintain the integrity of this process. Barbara A. Zugor Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 300 We’ve come a long way from the days of “just say no” to drugs. In Arizona, voters are being asked to say yes to street drugs and all their devastating consequences. As an organization that promotes and protects families, we ask that you cut through the rhetorical nonsense and vote “yes” on Proposition 300. A “no” vote on Proposition 300 will accomplish one thing -- legalizing drugs in Ari- zona. And not just marijuana, but incredibly dangerous drugs like heroin, LSD, PCP and crack. These drugs have no proven medicinal value. Two years ago, drug legalization forces targeted Arizona for an initiative that effectively legalized drugs. Out- of-state, pro-drug forces pumped more than $1 million into that campaign. By that one measure, the war on drugs was effectively surrendered. But Arizona voters, once they saw what the measure actually did, voiced immediate opposition. In a poll taken only two months after its passage, 85 percent of registered voters believed that drug proposition needed to be changed, and 60 percent wanted it repealed altogether. Wisely, our legislators moved to protect our community by requiring illegal drugs to have proven medicinal purposes before they can be prescribed. Now we have a chance to support that decision by passing Proposition 300. By passing Proposition 300, we have a chance to kick the drug pushers out of Ari- zona for good. If we allow drugs to be legalized, Arizona will be a magnet for every pothead, crack user and heroine addict in America. Our streets will be war zones, and drug-crazed nuts will place all of our lives at risk. Remember, a “yes” vote for Proposition 300 is a “no” vote for drugs. Len Munsil, Esq. Marion “Mac” Magruder President Board of Directors The Center for Arizona Policy The Center for Arizona Policy Scottsdale Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 300 ARGUMENT AGAINST H.B. 2518 The Arizona Legislature decided last year that it knew better than the people of Ari- zona how to deal with the state’s drug problems. The Legislature and Governor Sym- ington enacted two laws to overrule the new drug policies which had been adopted by Arizona’s voters by approving Proposition 200 in November 1996. Now, in this referendum, Arizona voters have the opportunity to teach the Legislature to respect the will of the public.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 138 Proposition 300

Through polling and workshops, the proponents of drug policy reform had learned in 1995 that the people of Arizona do not believe the current tactics against drugs are working. A majority see drug addiction as more a medical than a criminal problem. They also believe that doctors should be able to prescribe drugs such as marijuana when needed to relieve the suffering of seriously ill and terminally ill patients. That’s why Proposition 200 was approved by a nearly two to one vote in November 1996. But the Legislature decided the people were wrong, and passed a law which allowed first offense drug users to be sent to jail rather than treatment and prevented doctors from prescribing marijuana for seriously ill and terminally ill patients. This effort to overrule the Arizona public did not take effect because thousands of Arizonans signed referendum petitions. This referendum allows voters to send the message that the Arizona Legislature is the servant of the Arizona public, not the master. The Ari- zona public has the final word in setting the public policy of this state, not the Legis- lature. Vote NO on this referendum to assure that the Legislature does not further thwart the public will. John Norton Marvin S. Cohen Former U.S. Deputy Secretary Former Chairman, of Agriculture Civil Aeronautics Board Chairman, The People Have Spoken - Treasurer, The People Have Spoken - HB2518 HB 2518 Paradise Valley Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 300 In 1996 Arizona voters decided it was time to recognize substance abuse as a medical problem, not just a criminal problem, and by an overwhelming margin of 65.4%, passed Proposition 200. This action has received worldwide acclaim as a well-rea- soned and compassionate new approach to our failed drug policy. It was featured positively in a nationally televised “Bill Moyers Special” in March of this year. But, in a display of just how far we have strayed from the democratic principles on which our nation was founded, the Arizona legislators decided their opinions are more correct than ours. With wording in the double-talk that politicians have elevated to an art form, they passed two bills which, once translated into plain English, gut the initiative Arizona voters approved by an overwhelming margin. They were arrogant enough to think that they knew better than two-thirds the people what is best for Ari- zona. Some politicians have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo approach to drug policy, which has evolved into a welfare program for the political class. With compassion and common sense, Arizonans said severely or terminally ill patients should be able to get relief from their misery without fear of being arrested, providing they receive written authorization from two independent doctors, citing credible medical research. They expanded treatment and prevention programs to help break the cycle of drug abuse and addiction that is ravaging Arizona’s youth. But the politicians decided the voters were misguided in making this decision. They placed higher value on maintaining a rigid, outdated government policy than on easing human suffering.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 139 Proposition 300

We must tell the politicians that, in Arizona, democracy and the will of the people are still more important than the so-called “wisdom” of the political class. We must vote NO on Referendum Numbers HB2518 and SB1373, and allow the will of the people of Arizona to stand. Jeffrey A. Singer, MD, FACS Ross Levatter, MD Rod Silverman, MD Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Barbara Merz, MD David Gralnek, MD, Charles Goldstein, MD, Phoenix FAAOHNS FACEP Phoenix Phoenix Alan Bornstein, MD Walter E. Koppenbrink, Nelson Faux, MD Phoenix MD Phoenix Phoenix William J. Rice, MD R. Edward Westerfield, Joel E. Colley, MD, Phoenix MD DABA, FACA Phoenix Phoenix Keith W. Cunningham, MD Jeffrey D. Steier, MD Bernard Barber, Ph.D Phoenix Scottsdale Phoenix Mark L. Williams, MD William C. Dykes, MD Kimball P. Barnes, MD, Phoenix Glendale FACS Scottsdale James T. Carver, Ph.D Michael Lubin, MD Robert P. Reisman, MD, Phoenix Phoenix FCAP Phoenix Morley Rosenfield, MD, Lawrence W. Shaw, MD Philip Melmed, MD, FRCSC, FACS Phoenix DABA Phoenix Phoenix Teresa Pavese, MD Gerald F. Schwartzberg, Frederick J. Ginther, MD Awhatukee MD, FACP, FCCP Phoenix Phoenix Scott Holtz, MD Linda Benaderet, DO Stanley R. Friedman, MD Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix R. Thomas Stoffer, MD F.N. Rodriguez, MD, FACS Phoenix Phoenix Paid for by The People Have Spoken - HB 2518; John R. Norton, Chairman ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 300 The ultimate test of a democracy is whether a citizen’s vote actually counts. There is a disturbing trend in Arizona in which citizens pass initiatives by overwhelming margins, only to watch the legislature turn around within months and gut what the voters passed. This has occurred on numerous issues, including drug policy reform, health care, and the environment.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 140 Proposition 300

I don’t agree with every initiative that has passed in Arizona, but I fundamentally believe that the politicians at the legislature have no right to thwart the mandate of voters. We must honor the will of the people. Through two bills, the legislature repealed and severely amended Proposition 200 which dealt with medical marijuana and treatment diversion programs for drug users. Even though I opposed this ballot measure, I am opposed to the legislative repeal of this initiative only a few months after 65.4 percent of Arizonans voting approved it. I urge you to vote no on the referenda to gut Proposition 200. The will of the people must be respected and the programs they support, even when we disagree, should be given time to work. Only then can the people properly reassess. Grant Woods Arizona Attorney General Phoenix Paid for by The People Have Spoken - HB 2518; John R. Norton, Chairman ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 300 ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 300 The Legislature in 1997 effectively gutted the “Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act,” within months after its passage by Arizona voters as proposition 200 in 1996.. in my three decades of experience with Arizona government, I have never seen a more arrogant act by the Legislature. As a former Arizona Attorney General and Governor’s Chief of Staff, let me assure you that the rhetoric and scare tactics used to justify this legislative arrogance are groundless and wrong. 1996’s proposition 200 was a sensible, thoughtful and balanced measure, supported by the late Senator Barry Goldwater, former Senator Den- nis DeConcini, and most importantly, by the two-thirds of Arizona voters who voted for it. The citizens initiative and referendum processes, embedded in the State Constitution since statehood, are a vital part of our treasured heritage of grass roots democracy. What Arizona voters properly agree should be the law must not be ripped apart and discarded almost before the ink was dry. I ask you vote NO on Proposition 300, to preserve the will of the voters and to demostrate once again that the people are sovereign. John A. “Jack” La Sota Former Attorney General Phoenix Paid for by The People Have Spoken - HB 2518; John R. Norton, Chairman ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 300 In 1996 65.4 % of Arizonas approved proposition 200, the drug medicalization initiative. Within months of the voters’ approval, the Arizona legislature repealed much of this initiative and stripped it of some of its key provisions. Upset with politicians thwarting the will of the people, 200,000 voters signed petitions to stop the legislative repeal until 1998, when the issue could be placed on the ballot.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 141 Proposition 300

The issue is now on the ballot. A “yes” vote means agreement with the legislative repeal and amendments. A “no” vote preserves proposition 200 as originally approved by the voters in 1996. I strongly urge a “no” vote to let the progressive programs created by Proposition 200 continue. From my view as a sitting judge, none of the scare predictions of the legislature have come true. In fact, in March 1998, on public TV in “Moyers on Addic- tion,” Bill Moyers highlighted proposition 200 as a more effective way of dealing with drug problems than the traditional punitive court system. A “no” vote will let the will of the people stand and will inaugurate a more progressive approach to the drug menace than simply recycling drug users in and out of court. Rudolph J. Gerber Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals Phoenix Paid for by The People Have Spoken - HB 2518; John R. Norton, Chairman ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 300 The will of the people must be honored. We were among the 65.4 percent of Arizona voters who approved Proposition 200 in 1996. We could not believe it when the Ari- zona Legislature had the audacity to repeal this measure only a few months after it had been approved. We supported Proposition 200 because of its new approach to drug control, focusing on reducing drug use demand through expanded drug treatment and prevention programs. Breaking the cycle of addiction will help break the cycle of crime in our neighborhoods. We must get drug prevention to our youth before the streets provide them with a very different drug education. We urge you to vote no on the legislative referenda to repeal proposition 200. The will of the people must be respected if we are to restore integrity to our democracy. Vote No. Let the will of the people stand. Minister Gregory Coleman Pastor Henry Barnwell A.J. Miller Glendale Phoenix Phoenix Minister Victor Rushing Elder Vincent Bonds Pastor Arthur Strong Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Arter Johnson Minister Welton M. JeffersonGene Blue Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Yolanda Strayhand Elder Jerry Boyd Pastor Glen Dennard Glendale Mesa Phoenix Pastor Othell T. Newbill Minister Lummie Russell Pastor Arthur Lee Phoenix Phoenix Tempe Pastor Sam Henry Phoenix

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 142 Proposition 300 ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 300 In the November 1996 election, 65.4 percent of Arizonans voting approved Proposi- tion 200, the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act. Within months, the Arizona Legislature took it upon itself to dismantle the measure. The only excuse the politicians could provide was that they knew better than the voters whom they considered to be dupes. It’s amazing the arrogance of the politicians who believe the voters know what they are doing when they vote for them, but believe the same voters somehow don’t understand ballot measures. This arrogance has led to numerous legislative attacks on voter-approved ballot measures over the years. In 1998, you have an opportunity to rebut the politicians’ mischaracterization of Ari- zona voters by voting No on Propositions 300 and 301. Your No votes will ensure that the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act will remain intact the way it was approved by voters in 1996 and send the politicians a clear message that your vote counts. Vote No on 300 and 301. Let the will of the people stand. Dr. John Sperling Chairman, Apollo Group Inc. Phoenix Paid for by The People Have Spoken - HB 2518; John R. Norton, Chairman ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 300 In 1996, we were among the 65.4 percent of Arizonans voting which supported Prop- osition 200. This measure was also endorsed by our senior former U. S. Senators Barry Goldwater and Dennis DeConcini. We supported this measure because of its new drug treatment and prevention programs which target our community and because we believe jail space is best reserved for violent offenders, not terminally ill patients who use medical marijuana. Despite its broad support, the legislature repealed Proposition 200 with careless dis- regard only a few months after it had been approved. It was as if our vote didn’t really count. They might as well have thrown our votes away at the ballot box. Don’t let the politicians thwart the will of the people. Don’t let them take your vote away. Vote No on the referenda to repeal Proposition 200. Let the will of the people stand. Enrique Medina Richard Zazueta Candido Abeyta Phoenix Phoenix Glendale Alberto Chamberlain Jesus Hernandez Edward Valenzuela Phoenix Phoenix Tempe Daniel R. Ortega Jr. Ray Flores Gil Cano Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Henry Olea Ricky Ricardo Rodriquez Mary Rose Wilcox Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 143 Proposition 300

Christina Garcia Teresa Cruz Ruben Hernandez Jr. Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Alfredo Gutierrez Phoenix Paid for by The People Have Spoken - HB 2518; John R. Norton, Chairman

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 144 Proposition 300 BALLOT FORMAT PROPOSITION 300 REFERENDUM ORDERED BY PETITION OF THE PEOPLE OFFICIAL TITLE A REFERENDUM ORDERED BY PETITION OF THE PEOPLE ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE PEOPLE OF AN ACT AMENDING SECTION 13-3412, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING SECTION 13-3412, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 1 OF THIS ACT; REPEALING SECTION 13-3412.01, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 34, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 13-3412.01; RELATING TO DRUG OFFENSES; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONAL ENACTMENT. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE REQUIRING AUTHORIZATION BY THE FEDERAL FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION OR THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS FOR THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA BEFORE DOCTORS MAY LAWFULLY PRESCRIBE SCHEDULE I DRUGS, INCLUDING HEROIN, LSD, MARI- JUANA AND ANALOGS OF PCP, TO SERIOUSLY ILL OR TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS IN ARIZONA. PROPOSITION 300 A “yes” vote shall have the effect of requiring authorization from the Federal Food and Drug Administration or the United YES States Congress for the medical use of marijuana before it will be lawful for doctors to prescribe Schedule I drugs, including heroin, LSD, marijuana and analogs of PCP, to seriously or terminally ill patients in Arizona. A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the provisions of state law allowing doctors to prescribe Schedule I drugs, includ- NO ing heroin, LSD, marijuana and analogs of PCP, to seriously or terminally ill patients without the authorization of the Federal Food and Drug Administration or the United States Congress.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 145 Proposition 301 PROPOSITION 301 OFFICIAL TITLE REFERENDUM PETITION REFERENDUM ORDERED BY PETITION OF THE PEOPLE AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 13-901.01, 13-3420, 13-4304 AND 13-4314, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING TO DRUG OFFENSES. TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Sec. 2. Section 13-901.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 13-901.01. Probation for persons convicted of possession and use of marijuana, a dangerous drug or a narcotic drug; treatment; prevention; education A. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any A person who is convicted of the personal A FIRST OR SECOND possession or use of a controlled substance as defined in section 36-2501 shall be MARIJUANA IN VIOLA- TION OF SECTION 13-3405, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 1, POSSES- SION OR USE OF A DANGEROUS DRUG IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3407, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 1 OR POSSESSION OR USE OF A NARCOTIC DRUG IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3408, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 1 IS eligible for probation. UNLESS ANY OF THE FOL- LOWING APPLY: 1. THE PERSON HAS TWO OR MORE HISTORICAL PRIOR FEL- ONY CONVICTIONS AS DEFINED BY SECTION 13-604 NOT INVOLV- ING POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA, A DANGEROUS DRUG OR A NARCOTIC DRUG; OR 2. THE PERSON HAS A HISTORICAL PRIOR CONVICTION FOR A VIOLENT OFFENSE AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-604.04 OR AN OFFENSE INVOLVING THE INTENTIONAL OR KNOWING INFLICTION OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY OR THE DISCHARGE, USE OR THREATENING EXHIBITION OF A DEADLY WEAPON OR DANGER- OUS INSTRUMENT. B. A PERSON ELIGIBLE FOR PROBATION PURSUANT TO SUB- SECTION A OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE PLACED ON PROBATION, UNLESS THE PERSON REJECTS PROBATION, IF ANY OF THE FOL- LOWING APPLY: 1. THE PERSON HAS NO HISTORICAL PRIOR FELONY CONVIC- TIONS; OR 2. THE PERSON HAS ONE HISTORICAL PRIOR FELONY CON- VICTION AND THAT CONVICTION IS FOR POSSESSION OR USE OF MARIJUANA, DANGEROUS DRUGS OR NARCOTIC DRUGS. The court shall suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place such person on probation.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 146 Proposition 301

B. Any person who has been convicted of or indicted for a violent crime as defined section 41-1604.14, subsection B shall not be eligible for probation as provided for in this section, but instead shall be sentenced pursuant to the other provisions of title 13, chapter 34. C. Personal possession or use of a controlled substance pursuant to this act shall not include possission for sale, production, manufacturing, or transportation for sale of any controlled substance. D.C. If a person is convicted of personal possession or use of a controlled substance as defined in section 36-2501 MARIJUANA IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3405, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 1, POSSESSION OR USE OF A DANGEROUS DRUG IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3407, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 1 OR POSSESSION OR USE OF A NAR- COTIC DRUG IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3408, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 1, as a condition of probation, the court shall require participation in an appropriate drug treatment or education program administered by a qualified agency or organization that provides such programs to persons who abuse controlled substances. Each person WHO IS enrolled in a drug treatment or education program shall be required to pay for his or her THE COST OF participation in the program to the extent of his or her THE PERSON’S financial ability. E.D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, a person who has been placed on probation under the provisions of PURSUANT TO this section, AND who is determined by the court to be in violation of his or her THE INITIAL TERMS OF probation shall have new conditions of probation AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-901 established in the following manner: BY THE COURT. The court shall select the additional conditions it deems necessary, including intensified drug treatment, community service, intensive probation, home arrest, or any other such sanctions short of incarceration. F.E. If A person WHO IS PLACED ON PROBATION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION is convicted a second time of personal possession or use of a controlled substance as defined in section 36-2501 OF POSSESSION OR USE OF MARIJUANA IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3405, SUBSEC- TION A, PARAGRAPH 1, POSSESSION OR USE OF A DANGEROUS DRUG IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3407, SUBSECTION A, PARA- GRAPH 1 OR POSSESSION OR USE OF A NARCOTIC DRUG IN VIOLA- TION OF SECTION 13-3408, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 1 AND THE PERSON HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY OFFENSE LISTED IN THIS SUBSECTION, the court may include additional conditions of probation AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-901 it deems necessary, including intensified drug treatment, community service, intensive probation, home arrest, or any other action within the jurisdiction of the court. G.F. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY TO A person who has been IS convicted three times of personal possession or use of a controlled substance as defined in section 36-2501 shall MARIJUANA IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3405, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 1, POSSESSION OR USE OF A DANGEROUS DRUG IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3407, SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 1 OR POSSESSION OR

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 147 Proposition 301

USE OF A NARCOTIC DRUG IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3408, SUB- SECTION A, PARAGRAPH 1 AND THE PERSON HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED TWO OR MORE TIMES OF ANY OFFENSE LISTED IN THIS SUBSECTION not be eligible for probation under the provisions of this section, but instead shall be sentenced pursuant to the other provisions of title 13, chapter 34. Sec. 4. Section 13-3420, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 13-3420. Unlawful substances; threshold amounts For purposes of determining if the threshold amount is equaled or exceeded in any single offense or combination of offenses, a percentage of each substance listed by weight in section 13-3401, paragraph 28 30, or any fraction thereof to its threshold amount shall be established. The percentages shall be added to determine if the threshold amount is equaled or exceeded. If the total of the percentages established equals or exceeds one hundred per cent, the threshold amount is equaled or exceeded. If the threshold amount is equaled or exceeded because of the application of this subsection, the person shall be sentenced as if the combination of unlawful substances consisted entirely of the unlawful substance of the greatest proportionate amount. If there are equal proportionate amounts, the person shall be sentenced as if THE unlawful substances consisted entirely of the unlawful substance constituting the highest class of offense. Sec. 6. Section 13-4304, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 13-4304. Property subject to forfeiture; exemptions All property, including all interests in such property, described in a statute providing for its forfeiture is subject to forfeiture. However: 1. No vehicle used by any person as a common carrier in the transaction of business as a common carrier may be forfeited under the provisions of this chapter unless it appears that the owner or other person in charge of the vehicle was a consenting party or privy to the act or omission giving rise to forfeiture or knew or had reason to know of it. 2. No vehicle may be forfeited under the provisions of this chapter for any act or omission established by the owner to have been committed or omitted by a person other than the owner while the vehicle was unlawfully in the possession of a person other than the owner in violation of the criminal laws of this state or of the United States. 3. No property may be forfeited pursuant to section 13-3413, subsection A, paragraph 1 or 3 if the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture: (a) Did not involve an amount of unlawful substance greater than the statutory threshold amount as defined in section 13-3401, paragraph 28, and. (b) Was not committed for financial gain. 4. No owner’s or interest holder’s interest may be forfeited under this chapter if the owner or interest holder establishes all of the following: (a) He acquired the interest before or during the conduct giving rise to forfeiture. (b) He did not empower any person whose act or omission gives rise to forfeiture with legal or equitable power to convey the interest, as to a bona fide purchaser for value, and he was not married to any such person or if married to such person, held the property as separate property.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 148 Proposition 301

(c) He did not know and could not reasonably have known of the act or omission or that it was likely to occur. 5. No owner’s or interest holder’s interest may be forfeited under this chapter if the owner or interest holder establishes all of the following: (a) He acquired the interest after the conduct giving rise to forfeiture. (b) He is a bona fide purchaser for value not knowingly taking part in an illegal transaction. (c) He was at the time of purchase and at all times after the purchase and before the filing of a racketeering lien notice or the provision of notice of pending forfeiture or the filing and notice of a civil or criminal proceeding under this title relating to the property, whichever is earlier, reasonably without notice of the act or omission giving rise to forfeiture and reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture. Sec. 7. Section 13-4314, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 13-4314. Disposition by court A. If no petitions for remission or mitigation or claims are timely filed or if no petitioner files a claim in the court within thirty days after the mailing of a declaration of forfeiture, the attorney for the state shall apply to the court for an order of forfeiture and allocation of forfeited property pursuant to section 13- 4315. On the state's written application showing jurisdiction, notice and facts sufficient to demonstrate probable cause for forfeiture, and in cases brought pursuant to section 13-3413, subsection a, paragraph 1 or 3, probable cause to believe that the conduct giving rise to forfeiture involved an amount of unlawful substance greater than the statutory threshold amount as defined in section 13- 3401, paragraph 28, or was committed for financial gain, the court shall order the property forfeited to the state. B. After the court's disposition of all claims timely filed under this chapter, the state has clear title to the forfeited property and the court shall so order. Title to the forfeited property and its proceeds is deemed to have vested in the state on the commission of the act or omission giving rise to the forfeiture under this title. C. If, in his discretion, the attorney for the state has entered into a stipula- tion with an interest holder that the interest holder has an interest that is exempted from forfeiture, the court, on application of the attorney for the state, may release or convey forfeited personal property to the interest holder if all of the following are true: 1. The interest holder has an interest which was acquired in the regular course of business as a financial institution within section 13-2301, subsection D, paragraph 3. 2. The amount of the interest holder's encumbrance is readily determin- able and it has been reasonably established by proof made available by the attorney for the state to the court. 3. The encumbrance held by the interest holder seeking possession is the only interest exempted from forfeiture and the order forfeiting the property to the state transferred all of the rights of the owner prior to forfeiture, including rights to redemption, to the state. 4. After the court's release or conveyance, the interest holder shall dis- pose of the property by a commercially reasonable public sale, and within ten

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 149 Proposition 301

days of disposition shall tender to the state the amount received at disposition less the amount of the interest holder’s encumbrance and reasonable expense incurred by the interest holder in connection with the sale or disposal. For the purposes of this chapter “commercially reasonable” shall be a sale or disposal that would be commercially reasonable under section 47-9504. D. On order of the court forfeiting the subject property, the attorney for the state may transfer good and sufficient title to any subsequent purchaser or transferee, and the title shall be recognized by all courts, by this state and by all departments and agencies of this state and any political subdivision. E. On entry of judgment for a claimant or claimants in any proceeding to forfeit property under this chapter such property or interest in property shall be returned or conveyed immediately to the claimant or claimants designated by the court. If it appears that there was reasonable cause for the seizure for forfeiture or for the filing of the notice of pending forfeiture, complaint, information or indictment, the court shall cause a finding to be entered, and the claimant is not, in such case, entitled to costs or damages, nor is the person or seizing agency that made the seizure, nor is the attorney for the state liable to suit or judgment on account of such seizure, suit or prosecution. F. The court shall order any claimant who fails to establish that his THE CLAIMANT'S entire interest is exempt from forfeiture under section 13-4304 to pay the costs of any claimant who establishes that his THAT CLAIMANT'S entire interest is exempt from forfeiture under section 13-4304, and the state's costs and expenses of the investigation and prosecution of the matter, including reasonable attorney fees.

APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR APRIL 15, 1997. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE APRIL 15, 1997.

ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (In Compliance With A.R.S. Section 19-124) In 1996, the voters passed the Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996. Along with other provisions the Act modified probation, sentencing and treatment laws for drug offenders. After this vote, the State Legislature passed Senate Bill 1373, which established a more comprehensive sentencing system for drug offenders. This proposition would specify that persons who are convicted of a first or second offense involving possession or use of marijuana, a dangerous drug or a narcotic drug would be eligible for probation and must receive drug treatment or education. A person would not be eligible for probation if the person has two or more prior historical felony convictions for other offenses, has a historical prior conviction for a violent offense or an offense involving the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury or the discharge, use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or has previously been convicted two or more times of possession or use of marijuana, a dangerous drug or a narcotic drug.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 150 Proposition 301

This proposition would provide the voters with a choice of restoring the original act or permitting the provisions of Senate Bill 1373 to take effect. ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 301 I urge you to support Proposition 301, as someone who is against the legalization of Heroin, LSD, PCP, Crystal Meth and other hard core street drugs. It is illegal under federal law for doctors to prescribe Heroin, LSD, PCP, Crystal Meth and other illegal street drugs to their patients. Proposition 301 ensures that it would remain illegal under state law for doctors to also prescribe Heroin, LSD, PCP, and Crystal Meth. The only manner in which such street drugs could become legal under both federal and state law is if the Food and Drug Administration – after vigorous scientific review and debate, concludes that these illegal drugs have a proven medical value for doctors to prescribe them to their patients. This is the same process required for any other medication that doctors prescribe to their patients. It is the same process that must apply to all drugs, including Heroin, LSD, PCP, Crystal Meth and Marijuana. Don’t allow the illegal drug dealers and millionaire dope pushers to turn Arizona into a playground for their ill-gotten gains by allowing quack doctors to prescribe Heroin, LSD, PCP, and Crystal Meth to drug addicts. Vote yes on Proposition 301. John Kaites, Senator Glendale ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 301 Argument FOR Proposition 301 We support this proposition because government must adhere scrupulously to the rule of law -- a principle grievously violated by an arrogant Arizona House and Senate as they denied Arizonans the rights they have under our constitution to make law by initiative and referendum. The reason to approve this proposition is to tell the Arizona Legislature that they will not be allowed to usurp the constitutional rights of Arizonans ... period. That message, to be consistent and complete, requires the right votes on four related propositions: The first two are “YES” votes on Prop. 301 and its sister proposition, Prop. 300. Third is a “YES” vote on Prop. 105, which will specifically prohibit the Legislature from indulging in such a shamefully disrespectful power grab in the future. Finally, vote “NO” on Prop. 104, which is an attempt by the House to write into our Constitu- tion the power for them to tinker with laws we voters pass by initiative or referendum if, as they did with drug medicalization last election, they decide the voters were too stupid to vote correctly. Together, these four votes compose the message Arizonans need to send the Legislature: YOU MAY NOT HAVE, OR DIMINISH, THE LEGIS- LATIVE POWERS WE RESERVE TO OURSELVES.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 151 Proposition 301

Vote “YES” on Prop. 301, along with Prop. 300 and Prop. 105, and “NO” on Prop. 104, if you want to consistently voice your determination to defend our constitutional right to initiative and referendum. For more information about this position, or any other ballot item, please visit http://www.lpaz.org. John Buttrick Rex Warner Ray Price Libertarian Candidate for Libertarian Candidate for Libertarian Candidate for State Representative, U.S. Senator Treasurer District 25 Goodyear Scottsdale Phoenix Gary Fallon Tom Rawles Robert Anderson Libertarian Candidate for Libertarian Candidate for Libertarian Candidate for State Senator, District 24 Governor U.S. Congress, District 6 Phoenix Mesa Phoenix Kent Van Cleave Fran Van Cleave Ernest Hancock Libertarian Candidate for Chairman Chairman State Senator, District 25 Arizona Libertarian Party Maricopa County Phoenix Phoenix Libertarian Party Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 301 ARGUMENT AGAINST S.B. 1373 The Arizona Legislature decided last year that it knew better than the people of Ari- zona how to deal with the state’s drug problems. The Legislature and Governor Sym- ington enacted two laws to overrule the new drug policies which had been adopted by Arizona's voters by approving Proposition 200 in November 1996. Now, in this referendum, Arizona voters have the opportunity to teach the Legislature to respect the will of the public. Through polling and workshops, the proponents of drug policy reform had learned in 1995 that the people of Arizona do not believe the current tactics against drugs are working. A majority see drug addiction as more a medical than a criminal problem. The provisions of Proposition 200 were then drafted to reflect the conclusions Arizo- nans had already reached concerning state and national drug policies. The nearly two to one vote in favor of Proposition 200 in November 1996 confirmed that. But the Legislature decided the people were wrong, and passed a law which allowed first offense drug users to be sent to jail rather than treatment. This effort to overrule the Arizona public did not take effect because thousands of Arizonans signed referendum petitions. This referendum allows voters to send the message that the Arizona Legislature is the servant of the Arizona public, not the master. The Arizona public has the final word in setting the public policy of this state, not the Legislature. Impris- oning drug users has filled our jails and prisons at great public expense and has done nothing to solve the state’s drug problems. Vote NO on this referendum to assure that the Legislature does not further thwart the public will. John Norton Marvin S. Cohen Chairman, People Have Spoken Treasurer, People Have Spoken Phoenix Phoenix

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 152 Proposition 301 ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 301 In 1996 Arizona voters decided it was time to recognize substance abuse as a medical problem, not just a criminal problem, and by an overwhelming margin of 65.4%, passed Proposition 200. This action has received worldwide acclaim as a well-rea- soned and compassionate new appproach to our failed drug policy. It was featured positively in a nationally televised “Bill Moyers Special” in March of this year. But, in a display of just how far we have strayed from the democratic principles on which our nation was founded, the Arizona legislators decided their opinions are more correct than ours. With wording in the double-talk that politicians have elevated to an art form, they passed two bills which, once translated into plain English, gut the initiative Arizona voters approved by an overwhelming margin. They were arrogant enough to think that they knew better than two-thirds the people what is best for Ari- zona. Some politicians have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo aproach to drug policy, which has evolved into a welfare program for the political class. With compassion and common sense, Arizonans said severely or terminally ill patients should be able to get relief from their misery without fear of being arrested, providing they receive written authorization from two independent doctors, citing credible medical research. They expanded treatment and prevention programs to help break the cycle of drug abuse and addiction that is ravaging Arizona’s youth. But the politicians decided the voters were misguided in making this decision. They placed higher value on maintaining a rigid, outdated government policy than on easing human suffering. We must tell the politicians that, in Arizona, democracy and the will of the people are still more important than the so-called “wisdom” of the political class. We must vote NO on the Referenda on H.B. 2518 and S.B. 1373, and allow the will of the people of Arizona to stand. Jeffrey A. Singer, MD, FACS Ross Levatter, MD Rod Silverman, MD Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Barbara Merz, MD David Gralnek, MD, Charles Goldstein, MD, Phoenix FAAOHNS FACEP Phoenix Phoenix Alan Bornstein, MD Walter E. Koppenbrink, NelsonFaux, MD Phoenix MD Phoenix Phoenix William J. Rice, MD R. Edward Westerfield, MDJoel E. Colley, MD, Phoenix Phoenix DABA, FACA Phoenix Keith W. Cunningham, MD Jeffrey D. Steier, MD Bernard Barber, Ph.D Phoenix Scottsdale Phoenix Mark L. Williams, MD William C. Dykes, MD Kimball P. Barnes, MD, Phoenix Glendale FACS Scottsdale

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 153 Proposition 301

James T. Carver, Ph.D Michael Lubin, MD Robert P. Reisman, MD, Phoenix Phoenix FCAP Phoenix Morley Rosenfield, MD, Lawrence W. Shaw, MD Philip Melmed, MD, FRCSC, FACS Phoenix DABA Phoenix Phoenix Teresa Pavese, MD Gerald F. Schwartzberg, Frederick J. Ginther, MD Awhatukee MD, FACP, FCCP Phoenix Phoenix Scott Holtz, MD Linda Benaderet, DO Stanley R. Friedman, MD Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix R. Thomas Stoffer, MD F.N. Rodriguez, MD, FACS Phoenix Phoenix Paid for by The People Have Spoken - SB 1373; John Norton, Chairman ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 301 No on Proposition 200 Referendum (3-R-97) The ultimate test of a democracy is whether a citizen’s vote actually counts. There is a disturbing trend in Arizona in which citizens pass initiatives by overwhelming margins, only to watch the legislature turn around within months and gut what the voters passed. This has occurrred on numerous issues, including drug policy reform, health care, and the environment. I don’t agree with every initiative that has passed in Arizona, but I fundamentally believe that the politicians at the legislature have no right to thwart the mandate of the voters. We must honor the will of the people. Through two bills, the legislature repealed and severely amended Proposition 200 which dealt with medical marijuana and treatment diversion programs for drug users. Even though I opposed this ballot measure, I am opposed to the legislative repeal of this initiative only a few months after 65.4 percent of Arizonans voting approved it. I urge you to vote no on the referenda to gut Proposition 200. The will of the people must be respected and the programs they support, even when we disagree, should be given time to work. Only then can the people properly reassess. Grant Woods Arizona Attorney General Phoenix Paid for by The People Have Spoken - SB 1373; John Norton, Chairman ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 301 ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 301 The Legislature in 1997 effectively gutted the “Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act,” within months after its passage by Arizona voters as proposition 200 in

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 154 Proposition 301

1996.. in my three decades of experience with Arizona government, I have never seen a more arrogant act by the Legislature. As a former Arizona Attorney General and Governor’s Chief of Staff, let me assure you that the rhetoric and scare tactics used to justify this legislative arrogance are groundless and wrong. 1996’s proposition 200 was a sensible, thoughtful and balanced measure, supported by the late Senator Barry Goldwater, former Senator Den- nis DeConcini, and most importantly, by the two-thirds of Arizona voters who voted for it. The citizens initiative and referendum processes, embedded in the State Constitution since statehood, are a vital part of our treasured heritage of grass roots democracy. What Arizona voters properly agree should be the law must not be ripped apart and discarded almost before the ink was dry. I ask that you vote NO on Proposition 301, to preserve the will of the voters and to demonstrate once again that the people are sovereign. John A. “Jack” LaSota Former Attorney General Phoenix Paid for by The People Have Spoken - SB 1373; John Norton, Chairman ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 301 In 1996 65.4% of Arizonas approved proposition 200, the drug medicalization initiative. Within months of the voters’ approval, the Arizona legislature repealed much of this initiatve and stipped it of some of its key provisions. Upset with politicians thwarting the will of the people, 200,000 voters signed petitions to stop the legislative repeal until 1998, when the issue could be placed on the ballot. The issue is now on the ballot. A “yes” vote means agreeement with the legislative repeal and amendments. A “no” vote preserves proposition 200 as originally approved by the voters in 1996. I strongly urge a “no” vote to let the progressive programs created by Proposition 200 continue. From my view as a sitting judge, none of the scare predicitions of the legislature have come true. In fact, in March 1998, on public TV in “Moyers on Addic- tion,” Bill Moyers highlighted proposition 200 as a more effective way of dealing with drug problems than the traditional punitive court system. A “no” vote will let the will of the people stand and will inaugurate a more progressive approach to the drug menace than simply recycling drug users in and out of court. Rudolph J. Gerber Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals Phoenix Paid for by The People Have Spoken - SB 1373; John Norton, Chairman

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 155 Proposition 301 ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 301 NO on Proposition 200 Referendum (3-R-97) The will of the people must be honored. We were among the 65.4 percent of Arizona voters who approved Proposition 200 in 1996. We could not believe it when the Ari- zona Legislature had the audacity to repeal this measure only a few months after it had been approved. We supported Proposition 200 because of its new approach to drug control, focusing on reducing drug use demand through expanded drug treatment and prevention programs. Breaking the cycle of addiction will help break the cycle of crime in our neighborhoods. We must get drug prevention to our youth before the streets provide them with a very different drug education. We urge you to vote no on the legislative referenda to repeal proposition 200. The will of the people must be respected if we are to restore integrity to our democracy. Vote No. Let the will of the people stand. Minister Gregory Coleman Pastor Henry Barnwell A.J. Miller Glendale Phoenix Phoenix Minister Victor Rushing Elder Vincent Bonds Pastor Arthur Strong Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Arter Johnson Minister Welton M. Gene Blue Phoenix Jefferson Phoenix Phoenix Yolanda Strayhand Elder Jerry Boyd Pastor Glen Dennard Glendale Mesa Phoenix Pastor Othell T. Newbill Minister Lummie Russell Pastor Arthur Lee Phoenix Phoenix Tempe Pastor Sam Henry Phoenix Paid for by The People Have Spoken - SB 1373; John Norton, Chairman ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 301 No on Proposition 301 In the November 1996 election, 65.4 percent of Arizonans voting approved Proposi- tion 200, the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act. Within months, the Arizona Legislature took it upon itself to dismantle the measure. The only excuse the politicians could provide was that they knew better than the voters whom they considered to be dupes. It’s amazing the arrogance of the politicians who believe the voters know what they are doing when they vote for them, but believe the same voters somehow don't understand ballot measures. This arrogance has led to numerous legislative attacks on voter-approved ballot measures over the years. In 1998, you have an opportunity to rebut the politicians’ mischaracterization of Ari- zona voters by voting No on Propositions 300 and 301. Your No votes will ensure

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 156 Proposition 301 that the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act will remain intact the way it was approved by voters in 1996 and send the politicians a clear message that your vote counts. Vote No on 300 and 301. Let the will of the people stand. Dr. John Sperling Chairman, Apollo Group Inc. Phoenix Paid for by The People Have Spoken - SB 1373; John Norton, Chairman ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 301 NO on Proposition 200 Referendum (3-R-97) In 1996, we were among the 65.4 percent of Arizonans voting which supported Prop- osition 200. This measure was also endorsed by our senior former U. S. Senators Barry Goldwater and Dennis DeConcini. We supported this measure because of its new drug treatment and prevention programs which target our community and because we believe jail space is best reserved for violent offenders, not terminally ill patients who use medical marijuana. Despite its broad support, the legislature repealed Proposition 200 with careless dis- regard only a few months after it had been approved. It was as if our vote didn’t really count. They might as well have thrown our votes away at the ballot box. Don’t let the politicians thwart the will of the people. Don’t let them take your vote away. Vote No on the referenda to repeal Proposition 200. Let the will of the people stand. Enrique Medina Richard Zazueta Candido Abeyta Phoenix Phoenix Glendale Alberto Chamberlain Jesus Hernandez Edward Valenzuela Phoenix Phoenix Tempe Daniel R. Ortega Jr. Ray Flores Gil Cano Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Henry Olea Ricky Ricardo Rodriquez Mary Rose Wilcox Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Christina Garcia Teresa Cruz Ruben Hernandez Jr. Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Alfredo Gutierrez Phoenix Paid for by The People Have Spoken - SB 1373; John Norton, Chairman

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 157 Proposition 301 BALLOT FORMAT PROPOSITION 301 REFERENDUM ORDERED BY PETITION OF THE PEOPLE OFFICIAL TITLE A REFERENDUM ORDERED BY PETITION OF THE PEOPLE ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE PEOPLE OF AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 13-901.01, 13-3420, 13-4304 AND 13-4314, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING TO DRUG OFFENSES. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE PROVIDING FOR 1st OR 2nd CONVICTIONS FOR POSSESSION/USE OF MARIJUANA, DANGEROUS OR NARCOTIC DRUGS, A PERSON SHALL BE PROBATION ELIGIBLE UNLESS PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF 2 OR MORE FELONIES, A VIOLENT OR DANGEROUS OFFENSE; SHALL RECEIVE PROBATION IF THE PERSON HAS 1 DRUG POSSESSION/USE CONVICTION OR NO PRIOR FELONIES.

PROPOSITION 301

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of providing that a person convicted of a 1st or 2nd offense of possession or use of marijuana or YES dangerous or narcotic drugs shall be eligible for probation unless previously convicted of 2 or more prior felonies or of a violent or dangerous offense, and the person shall be placed on probation if the person has 1 drug possession or use conviction or no prior felonies. A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the requirement that a person convicted of a 1st or 2nd offense of possession or NO use of marijuana or dangerous or narcotic drugs shall be placed on probation unless the person was previously convicted of a violent offense.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 158 Proposition 302 PROPOSITION 302 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTED STATE OFFICERS AS TO LEGISLATIVE SALARIES HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND ARE HEREBY SUBMITTED TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS FOR THEIR APPROVAL OR REJECTION. “SHALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTED STATE OFFICERS CONCERNING LEGISLATIVE SALARIES BE ACCEPTED?” YES NO.” RECOMMENDATIONS, IF APPROVED, SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSION. CURRENT SALARY……………………..……………$15,000 PROPOSED SALARY: “EACH STATE LEGISLATOR SHALL BE PAID $24,000 PER ANNUM, AND AS FURTHER COMPENSATION, PER DIEM REIMBURSEMENT COMMENSU- RATE WITH AND AS PROVIDED BY LAW FOR NON-ELECTIVE ARIZONA STATE EMPLOYEES.” STATEMENT FROM THE COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTIVE STATE OFFICERS The Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers unanimously voted to increase the annual compensation of state legistlators from $15,000 to $24,000. At present, Arizona ranks 25th among the states in compensating state legislators. If approved by the voters Arizona would rank 18th. Approval would be consistent with raises given most other elected officers since the voters last approved a legislative pay increase. The Commission also unanimously recommended the voters approve the same per diem reimbursement for legislators as received by non elective Arizona state public employees. Arriving at fair, reasonable and appropriate legislative compensation was the goal of each of the Commission members, all of whom are private citizens serving without compensation. No incumbent member is a legislative lobbyist. Since 1970 Arizona’s Constitution provided the voters with a final review of the Commissions’ recommendation regarding legislative compensation. Peter Kay, Chairman Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 302 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATIVE PAY INCREASE Arizona’s legislators deserve a pay increase. Their pay has not been raised since 1981, when it was increased from $6,000 to $15,000 per year. Arizona’s ninety legislators are responsible for establishing a multi-billion dollar budget, passing the crimi-

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 159 Proposition 302 nal laws of this state, and enacting legislation which affects the lives of all Arizonans. It is much more than a part-time job for legislators who fulfill their responsibilities. Many Arizonans are unable to run for the Legislature because of the long hours and low pay. Voting “Yes” on Proposition 302 will increase the number of legislative candidates the voters will have to choose from in future elections. The Arizona Judges Association urges you to vote “Yes” on Proposition 302 to increase legislators’ salaries. Matthew W. Borowiec Christopher M. Skelly Superior Court Judge Superior Court Judge President Immediate Past President Arizona Judges Association Arizona Judges Association Phoenix Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 302 Argument “For” Proposition 302 Many Arizona legislators clearly don’t deserve a raise. Their inability to resolve issues such as school financing, cockfighting, and the brown cloud over Phoenix, to name just a few, will probably mean they’ll lose this vote for a fair wage. Their fail- ures, I assert, are precisely the reason we should give the Arizona Legislature a raise. There are many good people down there, but they can’t get the job done because of the do-nothings and the know-nothings. We must attact more intelligent, decent people and, to do that, we must offer more than the starvation wage of $15,000. It’s naive to think we can find ninety talented and honest people who will put their careers on hold and risk their family’s financial future. For Arizona’s sake, vote YES on Prop. 302 Janet N. Forrer, DVM Tucson ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 302 Statement for 1998 Ballot Proposition 302 In Arizona we have a Citizen’s Legislature. In order to allow every citizen the opportunity to serve as a representative of their neighbors at the State Legislature we pay a salary so that the hardship of spending a substantial part of their year at the Capitol does not discourage or prevent good candidates from participating. Currently, members of the Citizen’s Legislature receive only $15,000 per year. This amount has not been raised in 18 years. It is also difficult for legislators to obtain employment for the months they are not in session due to possible conflicts of interest. The legislature in Arizona does not approve raises for itself, instead recommendations are made by a non-partisan panel, that had no lobbyists on it, called the Com- mission of Salaries for Elective State Offices. After public hearings and serious study, the Commission unamiously approved an annual legislative salary of $24,000 a year

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 160 Proposition 302 for 1999. This would allow continued participation in the legislative process by good candidates. If you want a better legislature, remember the adage - “You get what you pay for!” Join me in voting to keep legislative salaries at a level which allows your neighbors the opportunity to represent you without financial hardship. Let’s support better government and a brighther outlook for Arizona’s future and vote for a fair, modest and long overdue increase. Charlie Stevens Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 302 The Secretary of State did not receive arguments against Proposition 302.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 161 Proposition 302 BALLOT FORMAT PROPOSITION 302

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTED STATE OFFICERS AS TO LEGISLATIVE SALARIES HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND ARE HEREBY SUBMITTED TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS FOR THEIR APPROVAL OR REJECTION. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE PROVIDES FOR AN INCREASE FROM THE PRESENT SALARY OF STATE LEGISLATORS FROM $15,000 PER ANNUM TO $24,000 PER ANNUM WITH PER DIEM REIMBURSEMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTED STATE OFFICERS. “SHALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON SALA- RIES FOR ELECTED 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 LEGIS- LATION. CURRENT SALARY……………………..……………$15,000 PROPOSED SALARY: “EACH STATE LEGISLATOR SHALL BE PAID $24,000 PER ANNUM, AND AS FURTHER COMPENSATION, PER DIEM REIMBURSEMENT COM- MENSURATE WITH AND AS PROVIDED BY LAW FOR NON-ELECTIVE ARIZONA STATE EMPLOYEES.” PROPOSITION 302 A “yes” vote shall have the effect of raising State Legislators’ annual salaries to $24,000, and as further compensation, per YES diem reimbursement commensurate with and as provided by law for non-elective Arizona state employees.

A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining State Legisla- tors’ annual salaries at $15,000, with the current legislative per NO diem rate.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 162 Proposition 303 PROPOSITION 303 OFFICIAL TITLE HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2027 AMENDING SECTION 41-511.23, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING TO LAND USE AND CONSERVATION APPROPRIATIONS. TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring: 1. Under the power of the referendum, as vested in the Legislature, the following measure, relating to land use and conservation appropriations, is enacted to become valid as a law if approved by the voters, and if the initiative styled “The Citizens Growth Management Act” fails to be approved by the voters, at the general election held November 3, 1998: AN ACT AMENDING SECTION 41-511.23, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING TO LAND USE AND CONSERVATION APPROPRIATIONS. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: SECTION 1. THE GROWING SMARTER ACT; DESCRIPTION; INTENT A. THE LEGISLATURE HAS ENACTED “THE GROWING SMARTER ACT” CONSISTING OF COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL, COUNTY AND STATE LAND DEPARTMENT LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING REFORMS, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACES AND ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM FOR CONTINUING STUDY AND CONSIDERATION OF PERTINENT ISSUES RELATING TO PUBLIC LAND USE POLICIES. B. THIS PROPOSITION PRESENTS TO THE VOTERS A KEY COM- PONENT OF THE GROWING SMARTER ACT. IT FUNDS GRANTS OF MONEY FROM EXISTING STATE REVENUES TO CONSERVE OPEN SPACES IN OR NEAR URBAN AREAS AND OTHER AREAS EXPERI- ENCING HIGH GROWTH PRESSURES. COMBINED WITH MORE SPE- CIFIC AND MORE DETAILED COMMUNITY PLANS, GREATER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN CREATING AND AMENDING COMMUNITY PLANS, MANDATORY REZONING CONFORMITY WITH ADOPTED PLANS, STATE TRUST LAND PLANNING AND AN URBAN AND RURAL GROWTH STUDY COMMISSION, THIS FUNDING FURTHERS THE BEST INTERESTS OF OUR CITIZENS BY PROTECTING OUR NATURAL HERITAGE AND WISELY MANAGING THE GROWTH OF OUR COM- MUNITIES. C. THESE COMPREHENSIVE REFORMS CONFLICT WITH THE INITIATIVE STYLED “THE CITIZENS GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT” WHICH MANDATES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF URBAN GROWTH

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 163 Proposition 303

AREAS, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANS AND LIMITS THE EXPAN- SION OF PUBLIC SERVICES. THE PROPOSALS IN THE CITIZENS GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH STATE FUNDED ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE WITHIN URBAN GROWTH AREAS AND WITH PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND OTHER URBAN LAND USE NEEDS. MOREOVER, LOCAL TAX BASES MAY BE ERODED BY THE ACQUISITION OF URBAN OPEN SPACE PROPERTY BY GOVERNMENT ENTITIES UNDER THIS ACT UNLESS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE ALLOWED TO CON- TINUE TO ANNEX NEW TERRITORY. D. THE VOTERS ARE THUS PRESENTED A CLEAR CHOICE IN THE DIRECTION THEY WANT COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES TO FOLLOW IN PLANNING AND MANAGING THE GROWTH THAT IS INEVITABLE IN THIS STATE. THE GROWING SMARTER ACT AND THE CITIZENS GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT ARE NOT COMPATIBLE. THIS PROPOSITION, THE GROWING SMARTER ACT, CAN TAKE EFFECT AND WORK SUCCESSFULLY ONLY IF THE CITIZENS GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IS NOT APPROVED BY THE VOTERS AND DOES NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE. Sec. 2. Section 41-511.23, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 41-511.23. Conservation acquisition board; land conservation fund; conservation donation and public conservation accounts; exemption from lapsing A. The conservation acquisition board is established, as an advisory body to the Arizona state parks board, consisting of the following members who are appointed by the governor, at least one of whom shall be experienced in solicit- ing money from private sources: 1. One state land lessee. 2. One member who is qualified by experience in managing large hold- ings of private land for income production or conservation purposes. 3. One member of the state bar of Arizona who is experienced in the practice of private real estate law. 4. One real estate appraiser who is licensed or certified under title 32, chapter 36. 5. One member who is qualified by experience in marketing real estate. 6. One representative of a conservation organization. 7. One representative of a state public educational institution. B. The governor shall designate a presiding member of the board. The term of office is five years except that initial members shall assign themselves by lot to terms of one, two, three, two members for four and two members for five years in office. C. The conservation acquisition board shall: 1. Solicit donations to the conservation donation account. 2. Consult with entities such as private land trusts, state land lessees, the state land department, the Arizona state parks board and others to identify conservation areas reclassified pursuant to section 37-312 that are suitable for funding.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 164 Proposition 303

3. Recommend to the Arizona state parks board appropriate grants from the land conservation fund. D. The land conservation fund is established consisting of the following accounts: 1. The conservation donation account consisting of monies received as donations. Monies in the account are exempt from the provisions of section 35- 190 relating to lapsing of appropriations. 2. The public conservation account consisting of monies appropriated by the legislature from the state general fund. Subject to legislative appropriation, IN FISCAL YEARS 2000-2001 THROUGH 2010-2011, THE SUM OF TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS IS APPROPRIATED EACH FISCAL YEAR FROM THE STATE GENERAL FUND TO THE PUBLIC CONSERVATION ACCOUNT IN THE LAND CONSERVATION FUND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION. Beginning in fiscal year 1998-1999, each expenditure of monies from the public conservation account shall be matched by an equal expenditure of monies from the conservation donation account and any amount that is so appropriated in a fiscal year and that is not matched at the end of the fiscal year reverts to the state general fund. The matched monies in the fund are exempt from the provisions of section 35-190 relating to lapsing of appropriations. Monies in the public conservation account, with matching monies from the conservation donation account, are appropriated to the Arizona state parks board for the exclusive purpose of granting monies to the state or any of its political subdivisions for the purchase or lease of state trust lands that are classified as suitable for conservation purposes pursuant to section 37-312. If the legislature fails to appropriate monies to the public conservation account in a fiscal year, the Arizona state parks board may either grant nothing from the fund in that year or, on recommendation by the conservation acquisition board, grant available monies in the conservation donation account for purposes authorized in this paragraph. E. The Arizona state parks board shall administer the land conservation fund. On notice from the board, the state treasurer shall invest and divest monies in either account in the fund as provided by section 35-313, and monies earned from investments shall be credited to the appropriate account in the fund. SEC. 3. PROHIBITED URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS A. THERE SHALL NOT BE A STATE MANDATE THAT A CITY, CHARTER CITY, TOWN OR COUNTY: 1. ADOPT BY ORDINANCE OR OTHERWISE ANY “GROWTH MANAGEMENT” PLAN, HOWEVER DENOMINATED, CONTAINING ANY PROVISIONS RELATING TO SUCH ISSUES AS MANDATORY DEVELOPMENT FEES, MANDATORY AIR AND WATER QUALITY CON- TROLS AND STREET AND HIGHWAY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND REQUIRING THAT, BEFORE ADOPTION, THE GROWTH MAN- AGEMENT PLAN, AMENDMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS BE AUTOMATI- CALLY REFERRED TO THE VOTERS FOR APPROVAL. 2. ESTABLISH OR RECOGNIZE, FORMALLY OR INFORMALLY, URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES, HOWEVER DENOMINATED, THAT

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 165 Proposition 303

EFFECTIVELY PREVENT NEW URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND EXTEN- SION OF PUBLIC SERVICES OUTSIDE THOSE BOUNDARIES. 3. APPLY OR ATTEMPT TO APPLY URBAN GROWTH MANAGE- MENT RESTRICTIONS OR BOUNDARIES TO LANDS OWNED OR HELD IN TRUST BY THIS STATE, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE. B. THERE SHALL NOT BE A STATE MANDATE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FILE ANY ACTION IN ANY COURT IN THIS STATE AGAINST ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR OFFICIAL TO ENFORCE ANY PROVISION PROHIBITED BY THIS SECTION. SEC. 4. CONDITIONAL REPEAL SECTION 2 OF THIS ACT IS REPEALED IF THE INITIATIVE STYLED “THE CITIZENS GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT” AND DESIG- NATED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE AS 12-I-98 IS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS AT THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD NOVEMBER 3, 1998 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV, PART 1, SEC- TION 1, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA. 2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article IV, part 1, section 1, Constitution of Arizona. FINAL VOTE CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON HCR 2027 House - Ayes, 34 Senate - Ayes, 18 Nays, 23 Nays, 11 Not Voting, 3 Not Voting, 1 House Concurs in Senate Amendments and Final Passage Ayes, 31 Nays, 19 Not Voting, 10

ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (In Compliance With A.R.S. Section 19-124) Proposition 303 is one part of the comprehensive “Growing Smarter Act” that was passed by the State Legislature to create open space and conservation areas throughout Arizona. This proposition would provide $20 million of State General Revenue each year for eleven years to purchase or lease state “trust land” and to preserve land from development as open space under the Growing Smarter Act. “Trust land” is land that the State of Arizona holds in trust to support public schools, universities and other public institutions, and the money used to purchase the land would continue to be held in trust for those purposes. This proposition would also provide that the state could not mandate local governments to adopt certain growth management ordinances, boundaries or other restrictions in court. This proposition does not stop local governments from enacting growth management ordinances, boundaries or restrictions on their own.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 166 Proposition 303 ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 303 I urge you to vote “yes” on Proposition 303. If this proposition passes, the state will provide $220 million over 11 years to help preserve scenic and open space projects across the state. Proposition 303 DOES NOT CREATE A NEW TAX, NOR DOES IT EXTEND A TAX. The money will be matched with dollars from other sources to purchase or lease State Trust Land to preserve it for future generations. State Trust Land is owned in trust by our public schools, and twelve other public institutions. This land was given to Arizona at statehood by the federal government, with the requirement that it be sold, leased or operated in a way that will bring in as much revenue as possible for the schools and other institutions. By purchasing State Trust Land with this money, we are investing in the education of our children and preventing beautiful property from becoming subdivisions and shopping centers. Everyone wins. State Trust Land in or near all of our cities and towns is eligible for this funding. Decisions about which areas ought to be preserved are left up to the communities themselves. This funding is the final piece of my “Growing Smarter” plan which was developed by hundreds of citizens to help Arizona remain beautiful and bountiful through the coming century. The plan, which was passed by the legislature earlier this year, also includes reforms to our planning laws to give more certainty and citizen participation in the planning process as well as the creation of a Growing Smarter Commission to make further recommendations on growth-related issues. The program will ensure that Arizona's growth is well-managed, both at the state and local levels. Please vote “yes” on Proposition 303. Jane Dee Hull Governor Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 303 Ballot Argument in Support of the Growing Smart Act Valley Forward Association strongly endorses the Growing Smarter Act as a vital step to preserve our desert landscape and to ensure a balance between economic development and environmental quality, Our 29-year-old non-profit business organization represents more than 350 members, including companies both large and small, most Valley municipalities, related civic organizations and many concerned individuals. Valley Forward’s mission is to improve the environment and quality of life in Valley communities. We are an historic advocate of desert prservation. Valley Forward supported the creation of the Arizona Preserve Initiative, and have consistently advanced the efforts of local municipalities to preserve open space in their individual communities. In keeping with our overall philosophy concerning environmental issues, we encourage a regional approach for desert preservation and land use concerns.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 167 Proposition 303

With our Valley communities growing at such a phenomenal rate, there is a critical need for the Growing Smarter Act. It will strengthen municipal and county planning, provide $220 million in long-term open space acquistion matching funds, and create a “Growing Smarter Commission” to study other growth-related issues and possible reforms from both urban and rural perspectives. We encourage citizens throughout Arizona to join us in that effort by voting to support the Growing Smarter Act. C. Webb Crockett Diane Brossart Stephen Anderson Chairman of the Board President Secretary Valley Forward AssociationValley Forward AssociationValley Forward Association Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 303 Argument in Favor of Proposition 303 July 9, 1998 The Sonoran Institute writes to express our support for Proposition 303 because it will provide a source of funding for the protection of open space across Arizona. Proposition 303 represents an important step toward recognizing the conservation value of State Trust lands. In Pima County, State Trust lands offer a tremendous opportunity to create a “greenbelt” around metropolitan Tucson that preserves open space, wildlife habitat, and sensitive riparian corridors. Conservation of State Trust lands serves as a critical element of a statewide growth management effort that would protect the environmental and economic values that make Arizona such an attractive place to live and visit. We are hopeful that Governor Hull’s Growing Smarter Commission will provide this vision and leadership. The Sonoran Institue looks foward to working with Governor Hull in promoting land-use policies that combine protection of State Trust lands with the delegation of authority and flexibility necessary for counties and municipalities to foster livable and sustainable communities. Luther Propst John Shepard Executive Director, Sonoran Institute Associate Director, Sonoran Institute Tucson Tucson ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 303 July 9, 1998 Superstition Area Land Trust Publicity Pamphlet Statement for Proposition 303 We support Proposition 303 because it provides matching funds to protect State Trust Lands as open space. There are thousands of acres of majestic State Trust Lands in the foothills of the Superstition Mountains less than an hour east of Phoenix. Residents and visitors from all over the world enjoy the grandeur and visual splendor of these open spaces. Because these are public lands adjacent to the Superstition Wilderness, people

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 168 Proposition 303 assume they, too, are protected. They are not. These priceless State Trust lands lie directly in the path of development in cash-strapped Pinal County. The Superstition Area Land Trust is working to preserve these lands as open space and protect them from development. We cannot do it without the matching funds that Proposition 303 will provide. The Superstition Area Land Trust does not stand alone. There are beautiful State Trust Lands all over the state of Arizona deserving of protection. Many of these areas are unique in the world, and contain plants and animals found nowhere else on earth. There are groups like the Superstition Area Land Trust working to preserve these open spaces. Arizona needs the $20 million dollars a year that Proposition 303 provides to save these priceless lands. Proposition 303 will not extend or create any new tax because it uses exisiting general revenue funds. Please vote yes on Proposition 303 to save Arizona’s State Trust lands. Rosemary Shearer, President Lanna Mesenbrink, Secy/Tres. Superstition Area Land Trust Superstition Area Land Trust Gold Canyon Apache Junction ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 303 The Desert Foothills Land Trust supports Proposition 303, which will provide funding assistance to communities for the acquisition of land for open space preservation throughout the State of Arizona. The primary reason people come to Arizona today is to experience the breathtaking beauty and scenic vistas of this spectacular state. The very history of Arizona reflects continous growth; it is simply a place so popular that people want to come and live forever. But with growth comes pressure on all sectors of society--and in the mix of such dramatic change the land naturally begins to vanish before our eyes. We believe that we must work now to preserve sensitive lands to insure a improved quality of life for future generations. And we believe that Proposition 303 can help us to achieve our vision of open space and natural beauty. The Desert Foothills Land Trust is a private non~profit organization in Cave Creek, established to preserve and protect sensitive natural riparian areas, opens spaces, cultural resources, scenic vistas and to provide a permanent safe haven for wildlife in northern Maricopa County. Our mission is to insure the survival of the unique plant and wildlife of the fragile Sonoran Desert for future generations. The Land Trust is currently working with the State Land Department to protect two spectacular parcels of state land in the foothills area, which include rare riparian habitat along Cave Creek. The money allocated under Proposition 303 would be matched by funds the Land Trust has raised to make the dream of preservation a reality.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 169 Proposition 303

We feel it is important for us to leave a legacy of natural lands for future residents and visitiors to enjoy. We urge all Arizonans who share the vision of saving open space, to vote “Yes” on Proposition 303. Chuck Bune Susan Svitak President Vice President Desert Foothills Land Trust Desert Foothills Land Trust Cave Creek Cave Creek ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 303 No one in Arizona wants to see urban sprawl. Proposition 303 makes it possible to buy and preserve open spaces and allows us to study and plan for our growth in a deliberate and reasonable manner. We don’t need out-of-state solutions like urban growth boundaries. Mandatory growth boundaries will raise housing prices, increase density and destroy what open space there is within the boundary. At the same time, property values outside the boundary will be destroyed. And instead of having less traffic and less air pollution, we will have more. Proposition 303 provides a common sense approach to growth in our state. “Growing Smarter” gives the people of Arizona a chance to voice their opinion on the future of our state. In 1965, Barry Goldwater led the effort to protect Camelback Mountain by founding the Presevation of Camelback Mountain Foundation and raising funds to buy and preserve the mountain for future generations. In supporting Proposition 303, I am proud to follow the precedent set by Senator Goldwater. By passing “Growing Smarter” we can provide a solid future for our children and send a message to out-of- state interests that we don't want or need their so-called “solutions.” Please join me in voting yes on Proposition 303. John Shadegg, Congressman Phoenix Paid for by John Shadegg for Congress ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 303 Arizona is wonderfully environmentally diverse. From the mountains of Flagstaff, to the depths of our beloved Grand Canyon, from the rolling hills of Patagonia, to the dramatic vistas of the Mogollon Rim, our State possesses an abundance of natural beauty. Due to the wisdom of those that came before us much of our State’s natural heritage has been preserved through our NATIONAL and state parks and individual preserve inititatives. While the State’s largest metropolitian area has no rugged shoreline, or sandy white beaches, it does possess what no other city in the country can claim: natural desert- mountain preserves. Here in the sixth largest metropolitian area in North America, a hiker or horseman can top a ridge and dip into a valley surrounded by, but totally removed from, the sounds and often the very sight of our dense urban surroundings. Every Phoenician should enjoy a sunrise from high above the desert floor. Watching our community rise with the sun and begin a new day is soulful experience.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 170 Proposition 303

Proposition 303, the “Growing Smarter” initiative gives us the opportunity to again secure our natural heritage. Proposition 303 requires that the State set aside $20 million annually for the next 11 years to be matched with other local governmental or private funds to purchase or lease State Trust lands. Because State Trust Lands are held in trust for the benefit of public education in Arizona, the money used to purchase open space will go toward improving our public education system. As one of the original founders of the Phoenix Mountain Preserve, and now as the Chairman of the Neighbors for Planning and Preservation, I encourage all Arizonans to join ME in supporting Proposition 303, to preserve our State’s natural heritage. Ruth Hamilton, Chairman Jan Hancock, Treasurer Neighbors for Planning and Neighbors for Planning and Preservation Preservation Phoenix Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 303 As elected local leaders, we must balance daily the interests of the greater community with those of individual landowners. Oftentimes, neighbors to new development have radically different ideas than those individuals who are attempting to build a new project. Today, there is very little “common understanding” of the rules that govern future growth. Propositition 303, Growing Smarter, gives all of us an opportunity to establish a new, tougher, set of rules which will govern future development, and an unprecedented opportunity to continue an Arizona tradition of preserving desert “open space’. Continuing to grow in the manner we have is an unacceptable option. Growing Smarter accomplishes two primary goals: • it puts real “teeth” into our ability to adopt and enforce community wide general and comprehensive plans, and • it sets aside $20 million annually for eleven years, to be matched with other funds, for the purchase of State Trust Lands to preserve them as desert open space. The most certain and predictable way for a community to grow is to develop a clear and concise general and comprehensive plan. At times these plans are not fully developed, sometimes ignored, and too frequently amended thereby routinely altering the framework and the common understanding of how each community intends to grow. With Growing Smater, no longer will a simple majority be able to amend a general and comprehensive plan. After we pass “Growing Smarter” amending such a plan will require a two-thirds vote of your local elected governing body. “Growing Smarter” requires that developers begin to pay their “fair share” toward the cost of additional public facilities or services. By institutiing these two changes alone, we will have created a dramatic shift from the development policies of the past and taken a large step towards preserving that which makes us uniquely Arizona.. William O. Arnold, Mayor Tom Augherton, Mayor Neil Guiliano, Mayor Goodyear Cave Creek Tempe

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 171 Proposition 303

Mark Schnepf, Mayor William Kosanovich, Mayor Wayne J. Brown, Mayor Queen Creek Youngtown Mesa Paid for by Neighbors for Planning and Preservation; Ruth Hamilton, Chairman ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 303 We are fortunate to live and work in a state that truly represents the pioneering spirit of this great country . Our economic vitality and quality of life bring many folks, just like us, to Arizona to experience all the beauty that Arizona has to offer. But our envious growth and prosperity has given rise to a new challenge; how to control our growth and not degrade the way of life we have come to expect. While the natural wonder of our State is unquestionable, the opportunity to make a good wage and provide for our families also has a powerful appeal. While the econo- mies of the East and Midwest were plummeting, Arizona’s economic optimism was, and still is, a powerful attraction. Arizona’s economy and lifestyle have become a beacon, drawing hundreds of thousands of new residents annually into our State. The question before us as we enter the next century is whether to extinguish our beacon, or refine our economic light. To accomplish these twin tasks, 1) preserving Arizona's natural heritage, and 2) continuing our economic prosperity, Arizona voters are being given the opportunity to establish a new set of rules that will govern the way we grow and preserve that which brought us here. Proposition 303, “Growing Smarter” strengthens our local government’s ability to stop urban sprawl, sets aside $20 Million annually for the next 11 years to purchase State Trust Lands and preserve them as desert open space, and establishes a statewide commission to recommend further changes in law to protect our State’s natural heritage. Please support Proposition 303 to preserve Arizona’s natural heritage and to continue our successful economic expansion Tim Lawless, President and CEO Jim Norton, Vice President Public Arizona Chamber of Commerce Affairs Phoenix Arizona Chamber of Commerce Phoenix ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 303 NO ON 303 The “growing smarter” proposition should really be called the developer protection act. It was written largely by developer interests to stop real growth management. The proposal would prohibit the state from requiring developers to pay impact fees as part of local growth management plans. So instead of making developers pay for roads and schools to serve their new developments, the rest of us will continue to pay taxes to subsidize growth. The proposal would also bar requiring voter approval for land use plans and amendments. This will allow developers to make deals with the politicians while the rest of us have no real say. And the proposal says that the state

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 172 Proposition 303 can’t require limits on air and water pollution in growth management plans. So instead of cleaning up our environment, this proposal will let things get worse. The proposal would also use $20 million/yr. in tax dollars to buy unspecified lands and “development rights,” supposedly for conservation purposes. The way the proposal is written, it’s a potential windfall for developers, ranchers, and farmers. For example, tax dollars could go to “non-profit” organizations set up by developers to buy more land next to their subdivisions. Tax dollars could also be used to pay big corporations not to destroy the environment. If you believe citizens, not developers, should determine managed growth, vote no on Proposition 303 Robert R. Beatson Carolyn Campbell Director Secretary Arizona League of Conservation Voters Arizona League of Conservation Voters Tucson Tucson ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 303 Say “No” to Legislature's Developer Protection Act The Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club urges Arizonans to vote “NO” on the Legislature’s “Growing Smarter” referendum, a bill that was written to protect big developers, not to manage the growth destroying our natural heritage. This so-called Growing Smarter proposition was authored and endorsed by a development attorney. It was promoted by development interests at the Legislature, who pushed it though with limited public review and no public input in the waning hours of the legislative session. The clear objective with this proposal was to keep things the way they are -- to do nothing to change the way we manage growth. The key legislative proponent of the bill even said “If you want nothing to happen then vote for these bills.” • Rampant growth will continue under “Growing Smarter” because it: • Prohibits the state from requiring that development pay its way through mandatory development impact fees (see Section 3 of the proposition); • Prohibits the state from requiring air and water quality controls in growth management plans; • Prohibits the state from requiring street and highway environmental impact reviews; • Prohibits the state from requiring growth boundaries, as part of any growth management plan; • Does not guarantee funding for promised purchases of State Trust Lands; • And prohibits any requirement for voter approval of plans. While Growing Smarter promises $20 million per year for acquisition of State Trust Lands, there is no guarantee that the Legislature will actually fund this proposal. With Growing Smarter, we could end up with no growth management and no money for open space, either.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 173 Proposition 303

Let’s all vote “NO” on Proposition 303 and continue to work for real growth management and conservation of natural open space. Kathy Roediger Sharon Galbreath Chairperson Conservation Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter Phoenix Flagstaff ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 303 The “Growing Smarter” referendum on November’s ballot could well be called a developer protection plan. Pushed through the state legislature last spring with input from developers, real estate interests et al., it was originally designed as the governor's answer to the Citizens Growth Management Act. This was an initiative backed by environmentalists and others who have been increasingly disturbed by growing urban sprawl and the destruction of the desert that accompanies it. The citizens act was withdrawn when it became clear the necessary 112,000 valid signatures could not be obtained by the July deadline. Backers vow to put it on the ballot in 2000. For now, supporters of the citizens act are working to defeat the governor-backed referendum, viewing it as simply a means of continuing the current state of affairs, where taxpayers subsidize growth and developers control the process. The Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Tucson agrees with those who say the Grow- ing Smarter referendum would block real growth management in Arizona. Here are some of the reasons: the referendum would prohibit the state from requiring mandatory impact fees, air and water quality controls, and street and highway impact reviews. It would also prohibit the state from requiring formal or informal growth boundaries as part of a growth management plan, and it would prohibit any requirement for voter approval of development plans. The referendum does appropriate $20 million a year for 10 years to a conservation fund, but these funds could be granted to non-profit organizations as well as government agencies. By creating a non-profit organization to act as recipient for the conservation money, a big developer could then effectively receive public funds to set up an open space preserve next to his land. The result, enhanced value for his land-- another public subsidy for developers. Sandal English, board secretary Robert L. Smith, treasurer Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 174 Proposition 303 ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 303 TUCSON MOUNTAINS ASSOCIATION ARGUMENT AGAINST “GROWING SMARTER” The “Growing Smarter” initiative should be defeated. Written by a developer lobbyist, it was meant to counteract the Citizens Growth Management Initiative. Now that the citizen’s initiative will not be on the ballot, not only is “Growing Smarter” unnecessary, it would be harmful; it would prevent local governments and citizens from managing growth in a significant way. Don’t swallow this harmful initiative dis- guised in a thin sugar coating of dubious environmentalism! The proposal attempts to lure voters with $20 million in tax dollars a year to buy land or “development rights” for “conservation” purposes. In fact, it allows tax dollars to go to “non-profit” organizations that could be set up by developers to buy more land next to their subdivisions. Tax dollars could also be used to pay off big corporations not to pollute. In other words, this proposal would put more of our tax dollars in the pockets of the wealthiest people and corporations in the state. “Growing Smarter” would prohibit the state from requiring developers to pay impact fees, leaving taxpayers to subsidize growth. None of this is very smart; it would restrict the right of the people of Arizona to manage growth in their own communities. Let's defeat “growing smarter” and work to support real growth management. Carol Klamerus, President Holly Finstrom, Secretary Tucson Mountains Association Tucson Mountains Association Tucson Tucson ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 303 The “growing smarter” proposition should really be called the developer protection act. It was written largely by developer interests to stop real growth management in Arizona. The proposal would prohibit the state from requiring developers to pay impact fees as part of local growth management plans. So instead of making developers pay for roads and schools to serve their new developments, the rest of us will continue to pay taxes to subsidize growth. The proposal would also bar voter approval for land use plans and amendments. This will allow developers to make deals with the politicians while the rest of us have no real say. And the proposal says that the state can’t require limits on air and water pollution in growth management plans. So instead of cleaning up our environment, this proposal will let things get worse. The “growing smarter” proposition is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It hides under a cloak of money for conservation and open space proponents’ real intent: stifle any attempts to bring Arizona’s runaway growth and its impacts under control. Vote ‘no’ on this proposition and send a message to the legislature to do it right next session with no hidden agendas. Peter C. Martori Phoenix

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 175 Proposition 303 BALLOT FORMAT PROPOSITION 303 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES REFERRED BY THE LEGISLATURE OFFICIAL TITLE HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2027 AMENDING SECTION 41-511.23, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING TO LAND USE AND CONSERVATION APPROPRIATIONS. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE PROVIDING $20 MILLION OF STATE GENERAL REVENUE EACH YEAR FOR 11 YEARS TO PURCHASE OR LEASE STATE TRUST LAND AND TO PRESERVE LAND FROM DEVELOPMENT AS OPEN SPACE; PROVIDING THAT THE STATE CANNOT MANDATE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ADOPT CERTAIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCES, BOUND- ARIES OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS. PROPOSITION 303 PROPOSITION 303

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of providing $20 Million of state general revenue each year for 11 years to purchase or lease YES state trust land to be preserved as open space and providing that the state cannot require local governments to adopt growth management ordinances, boundaries or other restrictions. A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current law, which does not make a $20 Million appropriation for 11 years for NO preserving state lands as open space or prohibit the state from requiring local growth management.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 176 Proposition 304 PROPOSITION 304 OFFICIAL TITLE HOUSE BILL 2158 REPEALING SECTION 41-2998.10, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMEND- ING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 27, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-2999.14; REPEALING SECTION 41-2999.14, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 27, ARTICLE 2, ARI- ZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-3003.10; PROVIDING FOR REFERENDUM; RELATING TO THE STATE LOTTERY COMMISSION. TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Sec. 3. Repeal Section 41-2999.14, Arizona Revised Statutes, is repealed. 41-2999.14. Arizona state lottery commission; termination July 1, 1999 A. The Arizona State Lottery Commission Terminates On July 1, 1999. B. Title 5, Chapter 5 Is Repealed On January 1, 2000. Sec. 4. Title 41, chapter 27, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 41-3003.10, to read: 41-3003.10. ARIZONA STATE LOTTERY COMMISSION; TERMI- NATION JULY 1, 2003 A. THE ARIZONA STATE LOTTERY COMMISSION TERMINATES ON JULY 1, 2003. B. TITLE 5, CHAPTER 5 IS REPEALED ON JANUARY 1, 2004. Sec. 10. Referendum; state lottery; vote at general election A. Under the power of the referendum, as vested in the legislature, sections 3 and 4 of this act are enacted, to become valid as law if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the governor. B. The secretary of state shall submit sections 3 and 4 of this act to the voters at the next general election as provided by article IV, part 1, section 1, Constitution of Arizona.

FINAL VOTE CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON HB 2158 House - Ayes, 40 Senate - Ayes, 16 Nays, 10 Nays, 13 Not Voting, 10 Not Voting, 1

ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (In Compliance With A.R.S. Section 19-124) Proposition 304 would amend state law to continue the Arizona State Lottery until July 1, 2003.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 177 Proposition 304

All state agencies, including the Arizona State Lottery, have a scheduled termination date that is periodically reviewed by the State Legislature. This year the State Legis- lature decided to ask the voters to decide whether to extend the termination date of the Arizona State Lottery. If the voters approve Proposition 304, the Arizona State Lottery will be scheduled to terminate on July 1, 2003. If Proposition 304 is not approved, the Arizona State Lot- tery is scheduled to terminate on July 1, 1999. ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 304 Healthy Arizona Coalition Statement on Continuation of Lottery Commission The Healthy Arizona suggests a “Yes” vote on Prop 304. At the same time we urge strong public scrutiny of the misuse of lottery money by the legislature and their dis- respect for the public’s mandate that lottery funds be prioritized to benefit healthcare (“Healthy Arizona”) and the environment (“Heritage Fund.”) The Healthy Arizona Coalition represents over 40 public service and healthcare organizations, coalitions and agencies in Arizona which came together to work for the Healthy Arizona Initiative (then Prop 203), passed by 73% of voters in 1996. A key part of our initiative was the funding, from lottery monies, of six successful healthcare programs (Healthy Families, Health Start, WIC, teenage pregnancy prevention, rural health and research) created by the legislature, but later defunded or underfunded. Lottery money was to have paid first for Heritage Fund projects (previously mandated, also by direct vote of the citizenry), then healthcare. But the legislature has ignored the will of the people. Instead legislators argued that Powerball money was “not lottery” and endorsed the little rule they had made for themselves legislatively that the first 25 or so million from Powerball was theirs to spend as they decide, leaving no money for projects as the voters have decided. Two years, and two legislative sessions, after one of the most overwhelming initiative votes in the state’s history, not one lottery dollar has gone to healthcare. Programs like Health Start have been completely defunded. A “yes” vote here, coupled with a “yes” vote on Prop 104, will support democracy in Arizona, reaffirming the votes for healthcare access you have previously cast. (See our comment under Prop 104 for more analysis of what happened with previous initiative votes.) Steve Nash, Chair Maryetta Patch, Vice Chair Healthy Arizona Coalition Healthy Arizona Coalition Tucson Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 304 Vote “Yes” on Lottery Protect Arizona’s Natural Heritage The Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club strongly supports reauthorization of the Arizona lottery, because it provides $10 million dollars per year to State Parks

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 178 Proposition 304 and $10 million dollars per year to the Game and Fish Department through the Ari- zona Heritage Fund. In 1990, Arizona voters passed the Heritage Fund into law by a decisive two-to-one margin. The Heritage Fund was designed to provide funding from lottery proceeds for protection of habitat for Arizona’s wildlife; support historic preservation and preservation of archaeological sites; create and improve community and state parks; promote an excellent trail system in Arizona; and provide funding for environmental education. Since its passage, thousands of school children throughout the state have benefited from “schoolyard grants” and the creation of dozens of community parks. The Heri- tage Fund provides lottery dollars for many miles of trails, including the Arizona Trail, and acquisition of important habitat for endangered and threatened species. Kartchner Caverns State Park, scheduled to open up some time next year, has received significant funding from the Heritage Fund. The reason conservationists worked to bring the Heritage Fund to the voters eight years ago was because year after year Arizona Legislators refused to provide adequate funding for State Parks and for the non-game activities at the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Prior to passage of the Heritage Fund our state parks system ranked as one of the worst in the country. Considering the current legislature's hostil- ity to environmental protection, it is doubtful that they would ever provide funding for any of these activities if there were no lottery and therefore no Heritage Fund. Please support the Heritage Fund by voting YES to continue the Arizona Lot- tery. Your vote will help maintain meaningful protection for Arizona’s natural heritage. Kathy Roediger Sharon Galbreath Chair Conservation Chair Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter Phoenix Flagstaff ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 304 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 304 The Arizona State Lottery provides critical funds for the transportation systems in Arizona cities and towns. $23 million of the proceeds from the lottery are distributed to cities and towns each year for street and road projects, filling potholes, sidewalk and street light construction and for public transit operating expenses. All cities and towns can use 10% of the monies for cultural, educational, historical or similar projects if there is an equal match from non-public funds. All cities and towns and their citizens benefit from these transportation dollars. By voting “Yes” you will allow these monies to continue to flow to our local communities. Cities and towns are also eligible recipients for monies from the Heritage Funds for park and recreation projects that benefit local citizens. These projects help our communities become attractive and livable places and improve the quality of life of all residents.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 179 Proposition 304

The dollars from your lottery are being used for important and useful purposes. We ask you to continue these projects by voting to continue the lottery. Chris Bavasi Mark Schnepf Mayor, Flagstaff Mayor, Queen Creek President Vice President The League of Arizona Cities & Towns The League of Arizona Cities & Towns Flagstaff Queen Creek ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 304 Vote “Yes” on 304: Reauthorize the Lottery and Preserve Our Natural Heritage The Nature Conservancy’s Arizona Chapter strongly supports the reauthorization of the Arizona lottery because it reinvests $20 million dollars per year in Arizona’s most precious resource: its natural and cultural heritage. Through the Arizona Heritage Fund, the $20 million dollar allocation is divided equally between State Parks and the Arizona Game and Fish Department for parks and recreation, natural areas, wildlife habitat, environmental education and preservation of historical and archaeological sites. In 1990, The Nature Conservancy helped launch the Arizona Heritage Alliance of more than 100 citizens groups to bring the Heritage Fund ballot initiative to Arizona voters. Although the Conservancy rarely engages in public policy issues on this scale, we supported the Heritage Fund because the need to preserve our state’s wildlife and natural habitat was overwhelming and urgent and no other reliable source of funding existed. Our state ranks sixth in the nation in the diversity of its plant and animal life, but falls close to the bottom in spending for these resources. When the people of Arizona passed the Heritage Fund into law by a decisive margin, they ensured that Arizonans would not sit by and watch irreplaceable resources vanish. Arizona is the second fastest growing state in the nation. Today, more than ever, we need the Heritage Fund to preserve our way of life and protect our future. The Ari- zona Chapter of The Nature Conservancy urges you to reinvest in Arizona by voting “yes” to continue the state lottery. Leslie N. Corey Bruce Williams Vice President and Executive Director Vice Chairman, Board of Trustees, The Nature Conservancy Arizona Arizona Chapter Chapter The Nature Conservancy Phoenix Arizona Chapter Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 304 The Arizona Heritage Alliance supports reauthorization of the Arizona Lottery because it reinvests $20 million each year in Arizona’s natural and cultural heritage through the Arizona Heritage Fund. The Arizona Heritage Fund was created by voter initiative in 1990. The Fund provides $20 million annually, $10 million each to the Arizona State Parks and Arizona

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 180 Proposition 304

Game & Fish Departments, to protect Arizona’s natural, cultural, and recreational heritage. Heritage Fund monies are improving the quality of life for all Arizonans by: Creation of more than 300 miles of non-motorized trails throughout Arizona; Development of outdoor education programs and learning facilities, including field experiences for inner-city youth, conversion of schoolyard areas into wildlife habitat with student learning centers, and development of wildlife/environmental curricula; Protection of Arizona’s cultural and historic resources, including the renovation and restoration of San Xavier del Bac Mission, Prescott’s Sacred Heart Church, and Phoenix’s Orpheum Theatre; Purchase of natural open space and critical habitat for wildlife including Whitewater Draw, Sipes White Mountain Wildlife Area, and the Sonoita Creek Natural Area; Development of community parks and outdoor recreation facilities throughout the state, such as public pools, ball fields, and other facilities; Monitoring, management and protection of wildlife, and reintroduction of endangered black-footed ferrets, Mexican gray wolves, and California condors; Purchase and development of new state parks, including Kartchner Caverns, and improvement of existing state parks. Prior to passage of the Arizona Heritage Fund, neither the Game & Fish nor State Parks Departments had funding to undertake these projects, despite repeated requests for appropriations from the Legislature. If the Lottery is discontinued, the Heritage Fund will lose its sole source of revenue. Vote “Yes” to reauthorize the Lottery and ensure the Heritage Fund continues to protect Arizona’s unique natural and cultural heritage. Andy Gordon, President Bart Patterson, Secretary Arizona Heritage Alliance Arizona Heritage Alliance Tempe Tempe ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 304 The Heritage Fund, passed by a vast majority of voters in the 1990 state election, provides up to $20 million annual funding, divided equally, to the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Arizona State Parks. All Heritage funding comes directly from Arizona state lottery revenues. No taxes or general fund money is touched. The Heri- tage Initiative clearly defines the amount of annual revenues each agency may expend and how those funds are to be utilized. Arizona boasts some of the finest state parks in the nation. Much of the funding to acquire prime lands – such as those at Oracle and Red Rock – has come directly from Heritage Funding. Of their annual allotment, Arizona State Parks uses five percent for local, regional and state trails and thirty-five percent on parks for outdoor recreation and open space. Seventeen percent targets acquisition of natural areas. An additional seventeen percent is spent on local, regional, and state historic preservation projects. Five percent is spent on environmental education.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 181 Proposition 304

The Arizona Game and Fish Department uses sixty percent of their Heritage dollars to identify, inventory, acquire, protect, and manage sensitive habitat for Arizona’s wildlife. (Of this, at least forty percent acquires sensitive habitat used by endangered, threatened, or candidate species.) Fifteen percent evaluates and protects habitat. Fif- teen percent is spent on urban wildlife and urban wildlife habitat programs. Five percent goes to environmental education – including grant money available to educators for developing environmental education curriculum and converting schoolyards into native habitats for Arizona’s wildlife species. The Arizona state lottery provides funding for these environmental and outdoor programs. A “Yes” on the Arizona state lottery will continue to help ensure future citizens of Arizona have an opportunity to enjoy the unique and diverse scenery and wildlife of our state for years to come. Lynn Krigbaum, President Mike Baker, President-elect AALE (Arizona Association for Learning AALE (Arizona Association for in and about the Environment) Learning in and about the Phoenix Environment) Phoenix Paid for by Robert O. Schedler and Karen K. Schedler ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 304 Argument in favor of Lottery Initiative 304, HB 2158 The Valley Metro transit system in the greater Phoenix area receives more than 16% of its operating funds from the Arizona State Lottery. If lottery funding is discontinued, there is no plan to replace this amount in the transit budget, resulting in a reduction of transit services, and a complete loss of access to public transportation for some riders. Valley Metro has more than 125,000 boardings a day. Of these trips, 45% are used to go to work, 16% are for school, 17% are for shopping, and the remaining 22% are for medical appointments and other needs. If public transit services are reduced, it will be a great hardship on those who have no other means of transportation. Currently, four out of five riders of public transportation in the metropolitan area do not have a vehicle available to them, either as a driver or a passenger. Many of the transit patrons are persons with disabilities, seniors, and low-income workers who totally depend on buses and Dial-a-Ride for mobility and freedom. Stu- dents of all ages in the Phoenix area use the bus to get to school and after school jobs. The Welfare to Work program would not be successful without the availability of public transportation. Voters have consistently rejected additional sales tax for public transportation, which forces cities to fund transit services out of their general funds. This leads to competition with necessary services, such as police and fire protection.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 182 Proposition 304

The Arizona State Lottery is critical to the mobility of many citizens. Please vote to retain it. Susan Webb Phil Pangrazio Executive Director Treasurer Arizona Bridge to Independent Living Arizona Bridge to Independent Living Phoenix Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 304 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE ARIZONA LOTTERY (PROPOSITION 304) The Arizona Lottery Commission was established in 1980 by vote of the people. In 1997-98 the lottery generated more than $7 million for public transit services in the State. If the lottery goes away, there is no plan to replace these funds and transit services will have to be reduced. Public transit provides an important service to Arizonans. It provides mobility to the one-third of Arizonans who are not licensed drivers. It serves many including the dis- abled, the elderly, students and job seekers. Transit is part of Arizona’s present and future mobility. The Arizona State Lottery’s financial support for transit is critical. This year the State Legislature decided to allow the voters to again decide whether the Arizona Lottery Commission should continue to exist. If the voters do not approve Proposition 303, the Arizona State Lottery will terminate July 1, 1999. Please vote to continue the Arizona State Lottery and vote yes on Proposition 304. John Anderson James Shipman AzTA Executive Committee AzTA Executive Director Arizona Transit Association Arizona Transit Association Phoenix Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 304 A public vote in 1980 created the state lottery as a new way to fund public programs through voluntary contributions rather than taxes. In 1990, the voters dedicated $10 million of the annual lottery revenues to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission Heritage Fund to be used for the management and protection of habitat for wildlife species that are not hunted or fished. Prior to the funding provided by the lottery, hunting and fishing license fees were the primary source of funding for managing all of the State’s wildlife. These Heritage Fund lottery revenues have allowed the State Game and Fish Department to provide a more complete and well-rounded wildlife management program. The future well being of Arizona’s wildlife depends on continued funding of the Game and Fish Her- itage Fund. We ask that you please vote YES on proposition 304. Herb R. Guenther Bill Berlat Michael M. Golightly Arizona State Game & Arizona State Game & Arizona State Game & Fish Commissioner Fish Commissioner Fish Commissioner Yuma Tucson Flagstaff

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 183 Proposition 304

Dennis D. Manning Jean Hassell Arizona State Game & Arizona State Game & Fish Commissioner Fish Commissioner Alpine Phoenix ARGUMENT “FOR” PROPOSITION 304 “YES” ON REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ARIZONA LOTTERY In 1990 Arizona’s voters overwhelmingly (almost 2-1) created the Arizona Heritage Fund to provide $20 million each year ($10M for Arizona State Parks and $10M for the Game and Fish Department), for the purpose of protecting Arizona’s unique natural beauty and wildlife, preserving our history and culture, providing environmental education and enhancing statewide outdoor recreation opportunities. The solo source of this $20 million dollars for the Heritage Fund has been the Arizona Lottery. (The Lottery also pays for the Local Transportation Assistance Fund, the Clean Air Fund, and other worthy programs.) These Heritage funds have had a significant positive impact on our quality of life, assisting in conservation and wildlife management, purchase and protection of critical wildlife habitat, creation of hiking trails, renovation and restoration of historic and culturally significant properties, development of outdoor education curricula and learning facilities, creation of neighborhood parks and recreation facilities and many other accomplishments. Historically, the Arizona Legislature had refused to fund these programs, despite repeated requests for appropriations. It is clear that Arizona citizens cannot rely on funding from the general fund for these purposes by our Leg- islature in the future. Unfortunately, some legislators disagree with the voters and wish to cut off the funding for these important purposes, by letting the Arizona Lottery die. Remember that the funding at issue is not obtained through a tax, but through revenues generated by the voluntary actions of Lottery players. Remember also that Arizona’s voters appar- ently need to send a second message to the Legislature about our priorities. Vote “yes” to reauthorize the Arizona Lottery. Carm R. Moehle, Chairman Craig D. Hegel, Treasurer Trout Unlimited, Arizona Council Trout Unlimited, Arizona Council Phoenix Phoenix Pat Leitner, Treasurer Joyce M. Lebowitz, Secretary Tucson Audubon Society Tucson Audubon Society Tucson Tucson Paid for by Arizona Council of Trout Unlimited; Carm R. Moehle, Chairman ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 304 Have your taxes gone down since the Lottery started in 1981? Of course not. The Lottery funds only 1% of Arizona State government. And State government spending is growing by 11% this year alone!

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 184 Proposition 304

If you vote to end the Lottery, you’ll just force Arizona State government to grow by 10% instead of 11% for one year, for example. The Lottery doesn’t cut your taxes, it increases government spending. Did you know that gambling addiction is one America’s fastest growing mental health problems? It’s up 65% since the 1980s – with no end in sight. Ending the Lot- tery won’t solve the problem, of course, but it’ll help slow down the rapid expansion of commercial gambling and gambling addiction in Arizona. Ending the Lottery will definitely solve one problem – the nearly $200 million of government spending for Lottery advertising that tells us that gambling is good and fun. This government advertising invades our homes and lives involuntarily. The government ads say we can get rich from gambling. What a terribly unrealistic and unhealthy attitude towards gambling the government is trying to teach my two kids and hundreds of thousands of others! Is it any wonder why gambling addiction is such a rapidly growing mental health problem? Please vote to quit the Lottery. Let’s just try not having a lottery for a change and see if we like it. John L. Wake Scottsdale ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 304 Government should not be in the business of preying on the weaknesses of people by promoting gambling in the form of the lottery. The net societal effect of our government-run lottery has been disastrous. The lottery seeks to entice everyone, but particularly the financially disadvantaged with the unrealistic hope of instant riches. As a result, it actually worsens the plight of everyone who participates, but, again, particularly our poorest citizens. The lottery undermines the work ethic. It is based on the premise of something for nothing, a concept that encourages laziness rather than personal responsibility and hard work. The lottery hurts those who can least afford it. Recent surveys in homeless shelters show that nearly 20 percent of homeless say gambling, especially lotteries, has played a part in their homelessness. The lottery is also bad economics. According to some studies, for every $1.00 the state collects from the lottery, it costs the private sector between $2.75 and $4.75. The lottery is both bad public policy and bad business. Our state is destroying the very people that need help the most. While some level of gambling as a form of entertainment may be appropriate in our society, the state government should not be in the business of promoting and operating gambling. Please join me in voting no on Proposition 304 and putting an end government sponsored gambling. John Shadegg, Congressman Phoenix Paid for by John Shadegg for Congress

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 185 Proposition 304 ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 304 State government’s role should not be to run organized gambling. For many of our citizens, gambling is considered morally wrong, and yet their state government not only officially condones gambling but actually runs the operation and take their cut of the profits. For other citizens gambling may not be a moral issue. However, those voters should consider the adverse impacts of the Lottery to our way of life. Just as marijuana is often a gateway activity to use of heroin or cocaine, the Lottery is billed as “family entertainment” when in fact it also acts as a gateway to more serious gambling and for some addictions. The state sponsoring of gambling is in part responsible for the environment in which our own college athletic programs have the disturbing problem of athletes with gambling addictions and criminal activity. Our college students are increasingly plagued with dropping out due to gambling losses and addiction while we use a state publicly advertise and encourage gambling. Elim- inating the Lottery will not prevent gambling at horse an dog tracks, tribal casinos, or even a trip to Las Vegas. It will prevent the damage caused by the state government sanctioning and promoting gambling for no other reason than a little profit As Charles Haddon Spurgeon so aptly explained, “Nothing hardens a man’s heart toward God as gambling, for in it he forsakes his trust in the Lord and places his trust in mere chance instead.” Vote No on Proposition 304. Pastor Leo Godzich Cave Creek ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 304 We ask you to join us in voting NO on Proposition 304 to continue the Arizona Lot- tery for another five years. It is wrong for government to encourage gambling. Yet, the state spends millions of dollars (and estimated $9.4 million last fiscal year) in clever advertising trying to entice more people to gamble. This is necessary because lottery sales have been declining. Because an estimated five percent of gamblers become addicted to gambling (potentially resulting in suicides, broken families and bankruptcies), the government should not be in the business of getting more people to gamble. It costs society at least as much to deal with problems associated with gambling as it takes in revenues. Moreover, as governments are trying to discourage other addictive behaviors (e.g., drugs, smoking and alcohol abuse), we send the wrong message when government promotes gambling. The people who profit from the lottery are mainly the big international gambling companies, advertisers, lottery retailers and the state bureaucracy. Lottery sales have declined from a peak in 1990 and now the state’s profit accounts for only one half of one percent of total state expenditures. Clearly, we can make up that money.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 186 Proposition 304

Whatever you think of gambling, it is not something government should be encouraging or promoting. Let’s do the right thing: VOTE NO on Proposition 304. Jon Kyl Jeff Groscost Bob Stump U.S. Senator – Arizona Speaker, Arizona House of U.S. Representative – Phoenix Representatives District 3 Mesa Tolleson John Shadegg Matt Salmon U.S. Representative – U.S. Representative – District 4 District 1 Phoenix Mesa ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 304 State government’s role should not be to run organized gambling. For many of our citizens, gambling is considered morally wrong, and yet their state government not only officially condones gambling but actually runs the operation and takes their cut of the profits. For other citizens gambling may not be a moral issue. However, those voters should consider the adverse impacts of the Lottery to our way of life. Just as marijuana is often a gateway activity to use of heroin or cocaine, the Lottery is billed as “family entertainment” when in fact it also acts a gateway to more serious gambling and for some addiction. The state sponsoring of gambling is in part responsible for the environment in which our own college athletic programs have the disturbing problem of athletes with gambling addictions and criminal activity. Our college students are increasingly plagued with dropping out due to gambling losses and addiction while we as a state publicly advertise and encourage gambling. Eliminating the Lottery will not prevent gambling at horse and dog tracks, tribal casinos, or even a trip to Las Vegas. It will prevent the damage caused by the state government sanctioning and promoting gambling for no other reason than a little profit. Vote No on Proposition 304. Larry Chesley Gilbert ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 304 Prop 304 – No An independent audit by the State Auditor General includes the following examples of your Arizona Lottery. The Lottery is owed $800,000 by retailers but will not collect. The Lottery spent $30,000 promoting a game and purchased $154,000 of excess inventory and only sold $52,000 of tickets for a loss of over $130,000 on a single game. The Lottery spent seven months and significant money developing a game that was eventually canceled due to planning problems. As a result of poor planning, 51 million excess unsold instant tickets were purchased by the Lottery at a cost of over $1 million in printing costs alone, with additional disposal costs. Employees have unlimited access to cash drawers and vaults, making theft possible and difficult to detect. The Lottery does not adequately protect cash on hand and other state assets. The Lottery staff have distributed game prizes to retailers and others in violation of statutory provisions. The Lottery computer system lacks adequate security. The list of

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 187 Proposition 304 mismanagement and abuse goes on for 42 pages. Enough is enough! Get rid of this abuse now! Vote No on Proposition 304. Rebecca S. Bradley Glendale ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 304 The citizens of Arizona set up a system of government in which each state agency comes up for termination under what are called Sunset Laws. At the time of an agency sunset, the Legislature must review whether an agency is fulfilling its duties and meeting its goals and make decisions about whether or not to continue the agency or make changes to how it is operated. When the Lottery came up for review, it was found that it was not meeting its statutory goal and despite nearly two decades of efforts to improve the agency it continued to be dreadfully mismanaged. The Legisla- ture is entrusted by the people it represents to discontinue mismanaged and ineffective programs. In preparation of determining the Lottery’s future the Legislature directed the non-partisan Auditor General to perform a performance audit on the Lot- tery. The resulting 42 page audit report condemned every section of the Lottery as mismanaged. In light of this devastating evidence, the Legislature could not be true to its public trust and vote to continue the Lottery. However, since the Lottery was created 18 years ago by a narrow 51% public initiative vote, it was decided to give the voters directly the decision of whether to continue the Lottery or not. I urge you not to continue this agency plagued with waste and abuse. Join me and Vote No on Prop- osition 304. Bernice C. Roberts Former Maricopa County Republican Chairwoman Phoenix Paid for by Richard Bark ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 304 It’s in the news everyday. A college athlete caught fixing a game. A casino won’t pay a prize. A family torn apart by gambling addiction and bankruptcy. What is the state doing about this? Promoting gambling with state lottery funds to encourage these occurrences. Under the guise of an innocent lottery we are addicting our citizens to a destructive lifestyle of looking to get rich without working for it. We are providing a gateway activity to train our young people in the lottery only to whet their taste for more hard core gambling. Why do we do this? To make a little money off the poor who dream of a better life but end up having precious dollars removed from their children’s food budget to pay for state encouraged gambling. This is a moral outrage! It is bad enough that the state allows gambling in the first place but to prey upon its own citizens by encouraging them to participate in self-destructive and addictive behavior is reprehensible. Join me in ending this outrage, Vote No on Proposition 304. Marilyn Jarrett Mesa Paid for by Committee to Re Elect Marilyn Jarrett

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 188 Proposition 304 ARGUMENT “AGAINST” PROPOSITION 304 Arizona should not be in the position of spending our taxpayer dollars to promote gambling. But every year since we’ve had the lottery, the state takes your money and encourages our citizens – often those who can least afford it -- to gamble away their paychecks on the false hope of riches In reality, you’ve got a better chance of being repeatedly struck by lightning than winning the Arizona lottery. If the government should only perform certain functions, we cannot justify having the state not only promote gambling, but actually running the operation and profiting from it. Gambling is the fastest growing addiction in America. The highest rate of addicion is among children. What begins with lottery tickets often ends up in full-fledged gambling addiction. While we spend millions of dollars to encourage kids not to smoke or chew tobacco, we turn around and spend more money encouraging them to gamble. Having the state promote a social vice that often leads to addiction, bankruptcy, suicide and criminality is a total outrage. The lottery itself has been plagued by scandal and mismanagement. The promised state money never materialized, except in the pockets of out-of-state companies who pushed the lottery through in the first place. Meanwhile, our “watchdog” news media sells out objectivity by gleefully announc- ing the winning numbers on its nightly news broadcasts. Only rarely does the media focus on the real legacy of gambling – broken and bankrupt families, kids left in cars while Mom gambles, college students committing suicide over debts, athletes being paid to throw games, crimes committed to feed a gambling addiction. And what is the state of Arizona doing about these problems? Spending your money to encourage everyone to start gambling! Vote “no” on Proposition 304, and get the government out of the gambling business. Len Munsil, Esq. Marion “Mac” Magruder President Board of Directors The Center for Arizona Policy The Center for Arizona Policy Scottsdale Phoenix

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 189 Proposition 304 BALLOT FORMAT PROPOSITION 304 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES REFERRED BY THE LEGISLATURE OFFICIAL TITLE HOUSE BILL 2158 REPEALING SECTION 41-2998.10, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 27, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-2999.14; REPEALING SECTION 41- 2999.14, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAP- TER 27, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SEC- TION 41-3003.10; PROVIDING FOR REFERENDUM; RELATING TO THE STATE LOTTERY COMMISSION. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE PROVIDING FOR EXTENSION OF THE TERMINATION DATE OF THE ARIZONA STATE LOTTERY FROM THE CURRENT TERMINATION DATE OF JULY 1, 1999 UNTIL JULY 1, 2003. PROPOSITION 304

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of extending the termination date for the Arizona State Lottery until July 1, 2003. YES

A “no” vote shall have the effect of keeping the current date of July 1, 1999 as the date for termination of the Arizona State Lot- NO tery.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced exactly as submitted in the “for” and “against” arguments. 190