Arizona: Not voting = "NO" vote?

[HX_Guy]

What kind of stupid idea is this? And it actually made it to the November ballot? I'm starting to think maybe I should get out of Arizona.

I mean I'm all for not raising taxes if it's not necessary, but just because someone can't make it out to vote does not automatically mean they don't or do support a measure. Think of how many projects currently being built or built in the past would not have happened had this been in place.

Measure adds new hurdles to tax-hike ideas

Arizona voters will decide on an initiative this November that would make it significantly more difficult for future statewide initiatives to raise taxes.

The Majority Rules proposal, certified for the ballot Monday by Secretary of State Jan Brewer, would require that any citizens initiative increasing taxes or fees or directing state spending receive support from more than just a simple majority of voters who cast a ballot.

In order to pass, such measures would need support from a majority of all registered voters, including those who didn't cast a ballot at all. In essence, "non-votes" would become "no" votes.

Because general-election voter turnout generally ranges from 45 to 65 percent in Arizona, the effect would be to markedly steepen the path to victory for any initiatives raising taxes or mandating state spending.

Supporters say the proposal is needed to ward off future large-scale tax increases. Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano is notable among the initiative's critics. She has called Majority Rules and its redefining of the electoral rules "misguided and wrong."

Majority Rules is the eighth measure to qualify for the November ballot. Three proposals have been rejected: the TIME transportation tax, a trust-land reform measure and a push to eliminate affirmative-action programs in Arizona government.

[wong21fr]

This initiative sounds like it would get tossed out if challenged in court.

Not to mention the pure stupidity.

[HX_Guy]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

This initiative sounds like it would get tossed out if challenged in court.

Especially given the wording of the actual initiative...

"To preserve and protect the right of the people to fiscal responsibility through true majority rule, an initiative measure that establishes, imposes or raises a tax, fee, or other revenue, or mandates a spending obligation, whether on a pirvate person, labor organization, other private legal entity or this state, shall not become law unless the measure is approved by a majority of qualified electors then registered to vote in this state."

Without actually knowing what it's about, one would think it's just saying that in order for a law to pass, it simply needs majority vote from the voters. But what it's really saying is that it needs majority vote from all registered to vote. Bullshit.

[glowrock]

Wow, I guess that means if the voter turnout is averaging about 50 percent, then I guess 75% of people need to vote for a revenue measure for it to pass? What is this, a super-hyper-super-duper majority?

Seriously though, this measure is surely doomed to failure in the courts. It's complete bullshit, because someone who doesn't vote isn't automatically voting against anything, period.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[HX_Guy]

I found this comment by someone else says it pretty well...

"This ballot measure effectively withholds a voter's right to abstain by counting any absent voter as a No vote. Regardless of the issue and whether I would prefer to vote Yes or No, I find it extremely discomforting that my vote would be counted even if I chose not to cast it for that particular measure.

I do not expect that a State Representative would receive my vote by default if I did not vote for his/her opponent, so I would not expect that it should be assumed I am opposed to an initiative if I do not vote to pass it."

[HooverDam]

This won't hold up in court. If you have the freedom to vote, you also have the freedom to abstain from voting and your abstaining shouldn't be assumed as a vote in any direction. Its a very, very stupid idea.

Now, I'm all for changing how we vote in this state/country (bring on instant runoff elections PLEASE, its the 21st god damned century), but this particular idea is quite lame brained.

[kevininlb]

I blame California, seriously.

This whole ballot measure crap got really stupid a while back and it's only getting stupier.

[bunt_q]

On what grounds do you guys think this would fail in court?

How is its effect any different from any other supermajority requirement?

[wong21fr]

^On my gut feeling that it just feels "wrong".

But, since you are the lawyer, how about enlightening us on whether such a proposal is legal or not?

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

On what grounds do you guys think this would fail in court?

How is its effect any different from any other supermajority requirement?

Because not voting is not the same as voting no. Its taking away someones right to abstain from voting (which is equally important as the right to vote). Would it be legal for a measure to say: "If you don't show up to vote, we're counting you as a "yes" because you were too lazy to show up!" I certainly hope not.

[combusean]

^ Yeah, there have been lots of issues that I didn't take a stance on or various positions like school board, justice of the peace, etc that I didnt vote for anybody because, really, to stay informed on ALL the issues and EVERY candidate is a ridiculous burden on anybody.

Would it be fair to a candidate that ran in one of the lesser elections that just because I chose to abstain that meant a "no" vote? How would the insane righties that are pushing this like it if they lost with greater than 75% of the vote because it was an off-year election?

Not voting is NOT the same as voting no.

[The Dirt]

Maybe they should make it so that this measure passes it needs to pass by a "majority" of registered voters, too. How's that for fair?

[NorthScottsdale]

wtf?? So assuming that half the people that turn out to vote vote no, and the other half vote yes, that would mean that essentially 75% of people voted no. Ridiculous

[HX_Guy]

Exactly.

And to add to that, it would be essentially impossible for anything to pass. The voter turnout would have to increase dramatically for people voting "yes" to have any hope as they would have to many non-voters working against them. Hell, people who would want to vote "no" on an issue wouldn't even have to vote anymore, just sit their ass at home...how easy and convenient!

[Vicelord John]

I have a blow dart gun if anyone wants to start shooting at anyone this stupid.

[Tfom]

I was asked to sign for this measure in front of the library about 3 months ago. I refused b/c I couldn't believe how dumb it was, and because I can't imagine how it is legal.

[NIXPHX77]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Maybe they should make it so that this measure passes it needs to pass by a "majority" of registered voters, too. How's that for fair?

you are so right on with this. what's fair is fair.
what a ridiculous ballot measure. i am mortified.

[bunt_q]

So I really don't know enough about Arizona state law to pass judgment... but my quick search doesn't turn up anything that would lead me to believe a court could overturn this. I don't know of anything in the federal constitution that would speak to a state initiative process. The Arizona state constitution creates the initiative process. This initiative (proposition 105 I think) is actually an amendment to the Arizona constitution... you're right, the rules now say a majority of votes actually cast. But I am not sure how, if that provision is amended, it could be challenged as unconstitutional.

Not to say, of course, that it won't be challenged... but it's harder to find a constitutional amendment unconstitutional than run of the mill legislation.

I'd say you guys need to get out and kill this thing sooner. It'll be a lot harder to kill it later.

[Tfom]

The process of determining the # of eligible voters would be so ridiculously cumbersome there's no way you could ever do it. What if someone moved the day before, or died. There should be a law against stupid.

[bunt_q]

A law against stupid - talk about cumbersome!