Nine state initiatives on Nov. 6 ballot

Between the political ads, televised debates and candidate rallies, it’s easy to forget the election in November isn’t just about electing officials — it’s also about voting for legislation changes.

This year, nine state propositions, which are technically amendments to the state Constitution, are up for a vote.

They range from trying to replace the two-party primary system to permanently establishing the 1-cent sales tax temporarily instituted during the depths of the recession.

You can get the complete voting guide by clicking here.

Proposition 114: The Crime Victims Protection Act of 2012

If this initiative passes, crime victims cannot be sued for damages by anyone who is killed or injured while committing or attempting to commit a felony crime against them.

An example would be if a burglar, breaking into a home, was bitten by the owner’s dog. Currently, the burglar could sue the dog’s owner for damages for the bite injury.

The state Legislature has attempted to address this issue in the past by passing a law protecting crime victims from lawsuits. That law, however, was nullified because it conflicted with the state’s guaranteed right to sue for damages.

Proposition 114 would change the state Constitution itself.

Advocates of the proposition argue victims of crimes should not have to worry about being sued by perpetrators of crime.

The state’s voting guide does not have any paid arguments against the proposition.

Proposition 115

This item deals with the selection and retention of state judges and justices. It would:
• Extend the term of Superior Court judges from four years to eight years.
• Extend the term of Court of Appeals and state Supreme Court judges from six to eight years.
• Extend the mandatory retirement age for judges and justices to 75 years old from 70 years old.
• Change how the commissions that nominate applicants for judicial vacancies are formed:
  o Each commission has five attorneys on it. Currently, all five are nominated by the state bar and appointed by the governor. Under Proposition 115, the governor would appoint four of the attorneys and the state bar would appoint one.
  o The amount of time a nominated attorney must have lived in and been licensed to practice law in Arizona will increase from five to 10 years.
• The minimum number of nominees submitted by a nominating commission to the governor would increase from three to eight. The number of nominees from a particular party would no longer be limited.
• If there is more than one vacancy in a court, at least six nominees must be submitted for each vacancy. No nominee could be submitted for more than one vacancy.
• Require the Supreme Court to make state judicial opinions or orders available on the state Supreme Court website, unless it is a sealed or confidential opinion.
• Require a joint committee to meet and take testimony on the judges and justices up for retention 60 days before a general election to retain state judges,

Arguments for the measure are that it will keep judges from being forced to retire when they are still able to serve and give people more information about judges on the ballot.

Opponents of the measure say it gives politicians too much control over who is selected to be a judge and inserts partisan politics into the judicial-selection process.

Proposition 116: The Small Business Job Creation Act

This measure would allow equipment and machinery used in agriculture, trade or business to be exempt from property taxes. It would apply to equipment acquired during the 2013 tax year. The exemption would be based on the market value of the equipment or machinery. That amount would be capped at at an amount equal to the annual earnings of 50 workers in the state. That figure will be decided using a national measure of employee earnings.

Proponents argue the bill will create jobs by encouraging small-business owners to invest in their business through the purchase of new equipment and allow them to hire new workers because they will have fewer taxes to pay.

There were no paid arguments against the measure.

Proposition 117

This initiative would cap the annual increase in the property values used to calculate property taxes. Property values could not increase more than 5 percent over the value of the previous year, starting with the 2015 tax year.

Those for the cap argue it would replace outdated taxation formulas, simplify the tax system overall and limit exposure to perpetual tax increases.

Opponents argue it would take revenue away from necessary state services and that it doesn’t actually limit taxation because it still allows new taxing districts to be added and overrides.

An alternative measure, Proposition 13, will be on the 2014 ballot as a citizen’s initiative.

Proposition 118

This measure would change how funding for public institutions such as schools and prisons coming from Arizona’s Permanent Land Endowment Trust Fund is allocated.

Proposition 118 would allocate 2.5 percent of the market value of the land trust fund for the preceding five calendar years. This formula would be in place from fiscal years 2012-2013 through 2020-2021. After that, funding would be disbursed using the current formula.

Currently, the complex formula used to distribute funds has resulted in unpredictable and irregular funding, even resulting in $0 being given to K-12 education some years.

Supporters argue that consistent and reliable funding is the best way to support education statewide.

There were no paid arguments against the initiative.

Proposition 119

This measure would allow the state to manage or dispose of trust land (excluding Native American reservations) by exchanging it for other land, public or private.

Although Congress already allowed Arizona to do this by amending the Enabling Act in 1936, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that unless the state Constitution is amended the state cannot exchange trust land.

Proponents argue that Proposition 119 increases transparency in land exchanges because full disclosure of the parcels involved, two appraisals and voter approval are required to make exchanges.

There were no arguments against the initiative.

Proposition 120

Proposition 120 would re-establish Arizona as the manager and operator of its public trust lands. Currently, public lands are subject to management by federal agencies.

Those in favor of the initiative argue that federal bureaucracy inhibits stewardship of the land including flood control and forest management.

They also argue federal regulations hinder the state’s economy by blocking mining and other infrastructure projects.

Opponents argue the initiative will allow the state to put the environment at risk by selling it off to private interests and that the financial burden of managing the lands is more than Arizonans can afford.

Currently, the cost of managing the lands is shared by the entire country.

Proposition 121: Open Elections Open Government

Voting “yes” for Proposition 121 would replace the two-party primary system with an open primary in which every candidate is placed on one ballot and everyone gets to vote, even if they are not registered with a political party.

The top two vote-getters would run against each other in a runoff election.

Fiscally, the initiative would save the state between $165,000 and $278,000 in printing costs.