Below you will find links to the ballot measures appearing on this year's Statewide General Election Ballot along with an analysis of each measure by the Pima County Libertarian party.

Prop 100	Prop 200
Prop 101	Prop 201
Prop 102	Prop 202
Prop 105	Prop 300

This measure prevents the legislature from enacting a real-estate transfer tax.  A real-estate transfer tax, something which currently does not exist in Arizona (but is being proposed in Tucson) would require that the seller of their home pay a tax at the time of the sale.  While we obviously would not support a new tax of any type, one such as this comes at a particularly bad time.  When the real estate market is slow, the last thing we need to do is put additional burden on those trying to sell their homes and it is immoral to impose taxes on the fruits of people's labor which is what this tax does.

With all the talk about "universal" health care, and single-payer systems, this initiative could not come at a better time.  Prop 101 will ensure that Arizonans will always have a choice on where to secure their health care needs so that any proposed single-payer system (one that would prevent consumer choice, by law) would not be enforceable. Under this ballot question, if a single-payer system is enacted in Arizona, Arizonans have the right to opt-out of it. Contrary to what the opponents say, this initiative has no impact on AHCCCS whatsoever, and it will not cost us a single penny.

This initiative would modify the state constitution to define "marriage" as between one man and one woman, effectively outlawing relationships that don't fit into this guideline (i.e. preventing the existence of gay marriage).  Marriage is a private act between consenting adults and, short of resolving disputes in divorce or child custody procedings, government should not have any involvement in marriage whatsoever. This initiative is government-sponsored bigotry and should be opposed.

This proposition would require that any future ballot initiatives require a majority of eligible electors (not just those voting) to pass the initiative if it would require a tax increase.  Arizona state government follows an elaborate system of checks and balances as outlined in the state constitution designed to prevent acts of tyranny. Despite the flaw of allowing the legislature to be able to refer a measure that would enact a new tax or spending measure to the ballot by a simple majority vote of both houses (which should be closed) this referendum would make it more difficult for special interest groups to use ballot initiatives to enact new taxes and spending initiatives when voter turnout is low.

* A minority of the LP board supports a NO vote on this measure for two reasons. First, this initiative is a sloppy method of requiring supermajority support for tax or spending increases; a better initiative would require a 2/3 or 3/4 percentage of voters' approval, rather than a majority of the electorate. Second, there is a concern that the supermajority requirement for all spending increases will lead to unintended consequences, such as the Arizona Supreme Court requiring that any libertarian initiative to privatize public utilities or enable school choice will be subjected to this increased burden if it has any affect whatsoever on the state economy.

Since the LP is divided on this issue, we provide arguments both for and against the initiative:

NO - The Stop Payday Loans Initiative was introduced earlier this year, which would have abolished all payday loans in Arizona. The Payday Loan Reform Act was introduced by the payday loan industry as a compromise to appease the former group and to be able to challenge their claims. However, the Stop Payday Loans Initiative supporters didn't collect enough signatures to make it to the ballot, so now we are left with a single initiative that would restrict the payday loan industry (which the industry itself introduced). This initiative is a restraint on an industry that exists and operates only because of the voluntary use of that business by its customers and that relationship should remain as such. The legislature will renew the law authorizing payday loans before it expires in 2010.

YES - While this measure does add a few regulations to the Payday Loans business, there is a strong possibility, maybe even a probability, that the current law allowing this business model will sunset in 2010. Many people living day-to-day need these short-term loans to get by, irrespective of the specious "usury" claims by limousine liberal politicians. Attorney General Terry Goddard submitted an argument opposing the initiative because he wants to outlaw the business model altogether. It is better for the voters to take matters into their own hands and vote YES than to place any confidence in the state legislature or the governor to get the job done.

Every election there is an initiative that is sponsored by a particular lobby that does nothing other than enrich that particular lobby. This year, it was the Sheet Metal Workers Union that put Prop 201 on the ballot. This initiative specifically puts a burden on home-builders requiring that they provide services that their customers are not demanding. Moreover, this initiative will require a ten-year home warranty be guaranteed by the seller to every home buyer, no matter the age of the home. Naturally, this is going to increase the cost of both new nad older homes, even for those who have no interest in receiving the supposed benefit that this initiative provides. 

Immigration is a contentious issue nationally but even more so in a border state such as Arizona. This country was built on immigrants that wanted to come here to work hard and provide better lives for themselves and their families. We find it difficult to believe that Arizonans now or ever want to turn those same hard-working individuals away, and we do not advocate measures to do so. Understandably, many immigrants enter into our country without going through the proper process, primarily because the process with which we expect immigrants to comply is patently ridiculous. The correct solution is to simplify the immigration and naturalization process so that others who want to work and contribute to our society can do so within days or maybe weeks, but not years or decades. The solution is to liberalize the federal immigration process. This initiative attacks employers that provide jobs for both American citizens as well as hard-working immigrants and creates a "guilty until proven innocent" atmosphere for both employers and employees who are caught in the crossfire of a Know-Nothing right wing.

This would increase Arizona state legislator salaries from $24,000 annually to $30,000.  The present membership of the Arizona legislature has created a budget that put us in the red by $1.7 billion dollars, and in so doing violated the state constitutional requirement of a balanced budget. This potentially means new and more taxes down the line, as well as leading to more people pursuing more careers in politics rather than serving in the state legislature as a part time job. Based on these points, we do not believe that Arizona legislators deserve a payraise. As for the argument that a pay raise is necessary to attract better talent to the legislature, we point out that the near $200,000 per year salaries for members of Congress has not succeeded in attracting a greater caliber of representative.


On all of the local questions that involve bonds and taxes and spending, the LP recommends a NO vote. This is not a time for any level of government to raise taxes on its people, least of all not local jurisdictions.