Campaign for Community Change

10/22/06 | Arizona Daily Star

Arizona voters are facing a confusing array of numbers and policies called the Nov. 7 ballot. They will navigate a long, complex series of ballot propositions — 19 statewide and one more in Pima County.

We spent the past many weeks navigating the propositions, poring through materials packed with legalese and politic-speak, and talking with dozens of people on both sides of the issues.

For some of the most contentious issues, we invited both sides to present their views, at the same time, to our editorial board.

As we evaluated each issue, appropriately, we stripped away the politics and the hidden agendas and judged each proposition on its merits through a prism of what was fair and useful for the people of our state. As we proposed our endorsements on the propositions, several disturbing trends percolated to the surface. We want you to know that:

Attempts to amend the Arizona Constitution are overused politics and usually bad public policy. Our state's Constitution has been amended more than 125 times since it went into effect in 1912. The U.S. Constitution has been amended only 27 times.

That's understandable — to an extent. The U.S. Constitution is an overarching document of fewer than 9,000 words that is packed with concepts and principles, many of them open to interpretation, in the courts and court of public opinion. The Arizona Constitution of about 28,000 words defines the framework for the government's operation and also outlines individual rights. The Arizona Constitution, as with most state constitutions, is more detailed than the nation's, and changes are inevitable. We understand that, but have the highest regard for thoughtful and lasting public policy.

Amending the Arizona Constitution is much easier than amending the U.S. Constitution. Our state's Legislature or citizens can propose amendments; the voters must approve all changes. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution is more involved. It requires passage by two-thirds of the House and Senate and ratification by 38 states.

Amendments at the state level must address long-term, not immediate, issues, must stand the test and scrutiny of time, and must not be redundant to state statute or breach the integrity of our Constitution. Some of the proposed amendments, such as local government tax levy limits (Prop. 101) and the municipal debt capacity (Prop. 104), address doing business and are necessary changes.

However, several of the constitutional propositions, such as limiting bail eligibility (Prop. 100), are overly specific attempts to define public policy by restricting the judicial system.

Amending the Arizona Constitution should be done prudently with the highest respect for our laws, people and future. The everyday details should be statutes passed by the Legislature, which brings us to our second point. Arizona's Legislature must be more effective and decisive in its leadership.

Arizona's Constitution has often been described as populist because its framers insisted on including the right to amend the document through initiative and referendum. Fair enough.

Arizona citizens have the right to propose and approve constitutional changes through the initiative process: Suggest a law and gather signatures to get it on the ballot for voters to consider and act on. Likewise, the Legislature can refer legislation to the voters for a decision through the referendum process.

We embrace Arizona's populist and participatory spirit, but many of the initiatives on this year's ballot were the result of legislative indecisiveness. Now we are to consider our collective future without the full benefit of representation and action that our Legislature owes us.

Prop. 300, which limits access to public programs, is a prime example of a legislative handoff to the people. Also, the Legislature couldn't or wouldn't up the minimum wage, so we the people passed petitions to get the issue before voters. The Legislature basically has painted itself into a corner in recent years by allowing ideological loyalty rather than collaborative public service to guide its agenda. When the ideological agenda is frustrated, it makes unwise remedy. That's why one of the ballot propositions would amend the Constitution to severely restrict the government's ability to use eminent domain — to the extent of practically outlawing the ability to write zoning legislation. Arizona law already protects property owners from the frivolous use of eminent domain, and these have been upheld by the courts. The proposition is clearly unnecessary except to the degree that it makes a political statement.

Populist legislation doesn't make exacting law.

Many of the amendments and statutes proposed on the November ballot are complex and subject to so much interpretation that the only folks who truly benefit are lawyers paid to help challenge and decipher the mumbo jumbo. Moreover, some of the measures' wording is not comprehensible in any language. As an example, this wording from a clause in Prop. 207: "THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CONTEMPLATED USE BE REALLY PUBLIC SHALL BE A JUDICIAL QUESTION" (sic).

Such language opens the door for, in lawyer-speak, "unintended consequences." A measure targeted at one issue or problem can have an unexpected negative impact on another.

The fussy wording also opens the door for dispute. The minimum wage measure is a messy measure that gave opponents plenty of red herrings to cast about.

Don't expect lawmakers to clarify the measures. Once an initiative is passed, the Legislature cannot change a word.

We do believe in the initiative process, but we also believe that future measures must be written succinctly and, most important, clearly.

As you review our endorsements on the ballot propositions, we strongly invite you to study them seriously, consider their outcomes and make an informed decision Nov. 7.