Arizona Lawmakers—Ballot Propositions 301 and 302
Friday, October 8, 2010 at 03:18PM Amy Laff (StateBrief) discusses 2 upcoming measures on the November ballot.
Among the items Arizona voters are being asked to decide in the Nov. 2 election are a couple of ballot measures, Proposition 301 and Proposition 302, that are the kinds of things that tend to get lost when the campaign volume gets cranked up.
Passage of both measures was assumed by the Legislature to balance the state’s budget. They, along with voters’ approval May 18 to increase the state sales tax to 6.6 percent from 5.6 percent, are propositions put on the ballot by the Legislature.
But unlike the sales tax, Propositions 301 and 302 do not ask voters to approve more taxes.
Proposition 301 is straightforward and seeks to sweep $123.5 million from the state’s “Growing Smarter” land conservation fund that was approved by voters in 1998. The money in the fund was earmarked to be used by governments as a dollar-for-dollar match with local money to buy up state trust land as open space.
State lawmakers already have swept dozens of other funds – as is known all too well by those who support, pay into and benefit from funds that were earmarked for such things as transportation, airports, parks and historic preservation, agriculture and utilities, just to name a few. The only difference is that the conservation fund has to be put to voters because it was originally approved by voters. The question Proposition 301 asks is whether this particular fund should continue to keep its privileged status?
Proposition 302 seeks to move $325 million from another fund but, beyond that would also help fix what was a flawed idea in the first place. It goes back to 2006 when the state’s voters approved Proposition 203, a “feel-good” measure with the can’t miss noble goal of helping the state’s poor children with early childhood development and healthcare. Unfortunately, the “do goodness” of the proposal overshadowed a doomed funding mechanism – an additional tax on tobacco products.





Reader Comments