2010 Arizona Proposition 112

2010 Arizona Proposition 112
2 November 2010
PROPOSITION 112
Results
Choice
 Votes %
Yes 792,664 49.99%
No 792,858 50.01%
Results by county

2010 Arizona Proposition 112 was a proposed amendment to the Constitution of Arizona to shorten the filing deadline for citizen initiative petitions from 4 months prior to an election occurring, to 6 months prior. The amendment was narrowly defeated, with just 194 more votes cast in opposition than in support.

Background

House Concurrent Resolution 2018 of the 49th Legislature Second Regular Session, 2010 placed the measure on the ballot. The primary sponsor was State Rep. John McComish, and the resolution also had 7 other sponsors.[1]

On March 15, 2010, the legislation passed the State House, with 54 votes in favor, and 5 legislators either voting present or not voting, and on April 29, it passed the State Senate, with 27 "Yeas" and 3 Present or NV.[1]

Viewpoints

The measure had bipartisan support,[2] which was further evident with its unanimous legislative backing.[1]

Support

Those in favor argued that the deadline of 4 months prior did not provide sufficient time for signatures to be checked to see if they were properly filed, processed, and counted.[3]

Legislators

President of the Arizona State Senate Robert L. Burns urged voters to join him "in voting yes to pass Proposition 112 on Election Day," explaining that the referendum would "improve our state's election process regarding citizen ballot initiatives," and that it would "simply [move] the filing deadline for initiative petition signatures from four to six months prior to Election Day." He reasoned that "Providing more time for the signature review phase [would] allow for a more thorough verification process for each initiative that appears on the election ballot," and would ensure "that signatures are properly filed, processed, counted, and verified." This, he said, would "only strengthen our electoral system and citizen's initiative process."[4]

Other supporters included State Rep. Chad Campbell.[3]

Editorials

The Arizona Daily Star backed the amendment, describing it as "a common-sense solution" that "merits a 'yes' vote."[5]

Opposition

There was no organized opposition movement to the amendment.[3]

However, groups running initiative petition campaigns for the 2010 ballot said that the signature requirement, which was higher than most other states, was hard to reach, and that the deadline being moved would make it even more difficult.[3]

Results

County Yes No
# % # %
Apache 7,848 43.12 10,354 56.88
Cochise 18,432 48.58 19,508 51.42
Coconino 15,950 43.82 20,451 56.18
Gila 8,435 51.36 7,988 48.64
Graham 4,005 48.56 4,242 51.44
Greenlee 1,063 48.14 1,145 51.86
La Paz 1,962 48.65 2,071 51.35
Maricopa 447,532 49.32 459,901 50.68
Mohave 25,817 53.02 22,874 46.98
Navajo 12,820 47.41 14,220 52.59
Pima 156,336 53.60 135,360 46.40
Pinal 32,864 45.72 39,016 54.28
Santa Cruz 4,303 48.76 4,522 51.24
Yavapai 39,721 52.29 36,249 47.71
Yuma 15,576 51.01 14,957 48.99
State total 792,664 49.99 792,858 50.01[6]

Aftermath

Recount

Following the voters' narrow rejection of the amendment, an automatic recount was triggered based upon state law requiring that any constitutional amendment ballot measure approved or rejected by less than or equal to 200 votes is rechecked.[7] The first tally of votes showed the measure had been defeated by approximately 125 votes,[a] but following the recount, it failed by 194 votes.[10] The recount was the first-ever recount of a ballot measure in the state's history,[7] and was the smallest margin a ballot measure had ever been defeated by in the state's history.[10] The findings of the recount were certified by the Hon. Robert H. Oberbillig on December 20, 2010.[6]

Reactions

Following the recount, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett said that the slight change in vote amounts was expected because of the large number of ballots being re-evaluated, but that the final tally was still very similar to the original count. He went on to say, "This exercise confirmed the accuracy of our voting system and should give voters confidence in the integrity of Arizona elections.[10]

References

  1. ^ a b c "Arizona HCR2018". PolicyEngage. Retrieved November 28, 2025.
  2. ^ Fischer, Howard (November 14, 2010). "Prop. 112 margin forces state-mandated recount". Arizona Daily Sun. Retrieved November 30, 2025 – via Newspapers.
  3. ^ a b c d "Prop. 112 offers more time to file petitions for ballot". The Arizona Republic. September 30, 2010. Retrieved November 30, 2025 – via Newspapers.
  4. ^ "State of Arizona General Election November 2, 2010 Ballot Propositions & Judicial Performance Review PUBLICITY PAMPHLET". Arizona Memory Project. Retrieved November 27, 2025.
  5. ^ "Prop. 112: 'yes' on moving initiative petition deadline". Arizona Daily Star. Retrieved November 30, 2025 – via Newspapers.
  6. ^ a b "IN THE MATTER OF the November 2, 2010 General Election Ballot Measure Proposition 112" (PDF). December 20, 2010. Retrieved November 27, 2025.
  7. ^ a b "Arizona Prop. 112 recount triggered". The Arizona Republic. November 16, 2010. Archived from the original on October 14, 2014. Retrieved November 28, 2025.
  8. ^ "Arizona Prop. 112 recount triggered". The Arizona Republic. November 16, 2010. Archived from the original on October 14, 2014. Retrieved November 28, 2025.
  9. ^ "Recount confirms defeat of Proposition 112". Arizona Capitol Times. Retrieved November 28, 2025.
  10. ^ a b c "Recount confirms defeat of Proposition 112". Arizona Capitol Times. Retrieved November 28, 2025.

Notes

  1. ^ One source says that the measure initially failed by 123 votes,[8] while another says 128.[9]

2010 Arizona Proposition 112 at Ballotpedia

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.