Arizona Proposition 306, Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure (2018)
- General election: Nov. 6
- Voter registration deadline: Oct. 9
- Early voting: Oct. 10 - Nov. 2
- Absentee voting deadline: Postmark Nov. 6
- Online registration: Yes
- Same-day registration: No
- Voter ID: Non-photo ID
- Poll times: 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
| Arizona Proposition 306 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 6, 2018 | |
| Topic Elections and campaigns | |
Status Approved | |
| Type State statute | Origin State legislature |
Arizona Proposition 306, the Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure, was on the ballot in Arizona as a legislatively referred state statute on November 6, 2018.[1] The measure was approved.
A "yes" vote supported this measure to:
|
A "no" vote opposed this measure, thus:
|
Election results
|
Arizona Proposition 306 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
1,248,675 | 56.19% | ||
| No | 973,385 | 43.81% | ||
Overview
As of 2018, what was the Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC)?
As of 2018, the Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC) oversaw Arizona's public financing program for campaigns. The CCEC had five commissioners—two Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent.[2] The commission was exempt from the state's rulemaking requirements; rather, the commission was empowered to adopt its own rules to govern the commission. Rules needed to be adopted in public meetings following a 60-day period for public comment. Proposition 200, which voters approved in 1998, created the CCEC.[3]
What did this measure change about the CCEC and public financing?
Proposition 306 prohibited candidates from using their public financing accounts, known as clean election accounts in Arizona, to give funds to political parties or tax-exempt 501(a) organizations that are allowed to engage in activities to influence candidate elections.[1]
The measure also removed the Citizens Clean Election Commission's (CCEC) exemption from the state's rulemaking requirements. The measure required the CCEC to receive approval from the seven-member Governor's Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) to finalize rules for the public financing program. The governor was responsible for appointing six of the council's seven members.[1]
How did this measure get on the ballot?
The Arizona Constitution required the measure to go on the ballot because the measure would amend a voter-approved ballot initiative—Proposition 200—passed in 1998. Rep. Doug Coleman (R-16) introduced the proposal in the state legislature. The state House voted 34-25 to place the measure on the ballot, and the state Senate voted 17-12. The votes were along partisan lines. Republicans supported the measure. Democrats opposed the measure.[4] Louis Hoffman and Amy Chan, former CCEC commissioners, sued the state over the measure's placement on the ballot. Hoffman and Chan argued that the ballot measure violated the state's single-subject rule, which states that "every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith." Rep. J.D. Mesnard (R-17), the speaker of the state House, responded to the litigation, contending that the former commissioners were trying to stop voters from deciding the rulemaking process. On July 16, 2018, Judge Teresa Sanders of the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled in favor of the state legislature. Judge Sanders said the single-subject rule applied to referred constitutional amendments, but not referred statutes.[5][6][7]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[8]
| “ |
Amending Sections 16-948 and 16-956, Arizona Revised Statutes; Relating to the Citizens Clean Elections Act. The law would prohibit candidates who finance their political campaigns with public funding from the citizens clean elections commission from transferring any campaign funds to a political party or private tax-exempt organization that attempts to influence elections and subjects the commission’s rulemaking procedures to regulatory oversight.[9] |
” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[8]
| “ |
A “YES” vote will prohibit statewide and legislative candidates who receive public funding to finance their political campaigns from transferring campaign funds to a political party or a private tax-exempt organization that attempts to influence elections, and will subject the Citizens Clean Elections Commission’s rulemaking procedures to the regulatory oversight that applies to other state agencies by repealing the Commission’s exemption from the Administrative Procedures Act. A “NO” vote will allow the Citizens Clean Elections Commission to determine whether publicly-funded candidates are permitted to transfer their campaign funds to political parties or private tax-exempt organizations that influence candidate elections, and will leave current law unchanged regarding administrative oversight of the Commission’s rulemaking.[9] |
” |
Full text
The measure amended Proposition 200, which voters approved in 1998. The following underlined text was added and struck-through text was deleted:[1]
A. A participating candidate shall conduct all financial activity through a single campaign account of the candidate's campaign committee. A participating candidate shall not make any deposits into the campaign account other than those permitted under section 16-945 or 16-946. B. A candidate may designate other persons with authority to withdraw C. The candidate or a person authorized under subsection B of this section shall pay monies from a participating candidate's campaign account directly to the person providing goods or services to the campaign and shall identify, on a report filed pursuant to article
D. Notwithstanding
16-956. Voter education and enforcement duties. A. The commission shall:
B. The commission may subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance and testimony, administer oaths and affirmations, take evidence and require by subpoena the production of any books, papers, records or other items material to the performance of the commission's duties or the exercise of its powers. C. The commission may adopt rules to carry out the purposes of this article and to govern procedures of the commission. D. Rules adopted by the commission are not effective until January 1 in the year following the adoption of the rule, except that rules adopted by unanimous vote of the commission may be made immediately effective and enforceable. E. If, in the view of the commission, the action of a particular candidate or committee requires immediate change to a commission rule, a unanimous vote of the commission is required. Any rule change made pursuant to this subsection that is enacted with less than a unanimous vote takes effect for the next election cycle. F. Based on the results of the elections in any quadrennial election after 2002, and within six months after such election, the commission may adopt rules changing the number of qualifying contributions required for any office from those listed in section 16-950, subsection D, by no more than twenty |
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
| Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.
In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here. |
Support
Stop Taxpayer Money For Political Parties led the campaign in support of Proposition 306.[10]
Supporters
Officials
- Rep. Mark Finchem (R-11)[11]
Organizations
- Americans for Prosperity, Arizona Chapter[11]
Arguments
- Rep. John Allen (R-15) said that under the current system "the parties are going to go out and recruit members who have no real interest, people to run in districts where they can’t win—the tide is against them party-wise—get on the ballot, collect the $5 forms, and then take the maximum amount they can and funnel it somewhere else."[4]
- Rep. Mark Finchem (R-11) stated, "In 2016, it was discovered that several clean election candidates had contributed over $100,000 to the State Democrat Party. This was an obvious abuse of the system and opens up the possibility that both state parties could look to place candidates on the ballot for the sole purpose of providing clean election funds to the party."[11]
Opposition
Opponents
Officials
- Sen. Katie Hobbs (D-24)[11]
- Sen. Juan Mendez (D-26)[11]
- Rep. Ken Clark (D-24)[11]
- Rep. Isela Blanc (D-26)[11]
- Rep. Athena Salman (D-26)[11]
Organizations
- Arizona Advocacy Network[12]
- Chispa Arizona[11]
- League of Women Voters of Arizona[11]
- Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter[11]
Arguments
- Rep. Athena Salman (D-26) said, "The Clean Elections Commission changed its rules last year to require more reporting of clean election candidates, more audits, and require deeper disclosure of not only vendors, parties, who are vendors for candidates... but also requiring more transparency with the consultants that clean election candidates contract with. ... This measure effectively would reverse those rules and bring consultants back into the dark with how clean election funding is spent through consultants."[4]
- Robyn Prud’homme-Bauer, co-president of the League of Women Voters of Arizona, stated, "The Arizona Legislature’s proposed revision to the AZ Clean Elections Commission’s rule making process will allow a totally partisan entity, appointed only by the Governor, to oversee the Commission’s rule making, thus removing its independence. Passage of Proposition 306 will likely weaken the commission’s ability to oversee the enforcement of campaign finance laws, to maintain adequate oversight of the funding it provides to Clean Election Candidates and could even curtail its valuable voter education program."[11]
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $18,831.77 |
| Opposition: | $10,501.97 |
Stop Taxpayer Money For Political Parties, a political action committee, was registered to support Proposition 306. The PAC had raised $18,832 and expended $18,832. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club provided the largest contribution—$18,807.[12]
Arizona Advocacy Network (AZAN) Against The Dark Money Lobbyist Power Grab, a political action committee, was registered to oppose Proposition 306. The PAC had raised $10,502 and expended $5,346. Thomas Collins, an individual, provided the largest contribution, donating $4,200.[12]
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of Proposition 306:[12]
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Donors
The following was the top donor who contributed to the support committee:[12]
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona Free Enterprise Club | $16,256.77 | $2,550.00 | $18,806.77 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to Proposition 306:[12]
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Donors
The following were the top donors who contributed to the opposition committee:[12]
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Collins | $4,200.00 | $0.00 | $4,200.00 |
| Arizona Advocacy Network | $0.00 | $2,586.97 | $2,586.97 |
| Michael J. Valder | $1,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,000.00 |
| Louis Hoffman | $1,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,000.00 |
Reporting dates
In Arizona, ballot measure committees filed a total of six campaign finance reports in 2018. The filing dates for reports were as follows:[13]
| Campaign finance reporting dates for 2018 ballot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Date | Report | Period |
| 1/15/2018 | Final 2017 Report | 10/01/2017 - 12/31/2017 |
| 4/16/2018 | Report #1 | 1/01/2018 - 3/31/2018 |
| 7/16/2018 | Report #2 | 4/01/2018 - 6/30/2018 |
| 8/20/2018 | Report #3 | 7/01/2018 - 8/11/2018 |
| 10/15/2018 | Report #5 | 8/12/2018 - 9/30/2018 |
| 10/29/2018 | Report #6 | 10/01/2018 - 10/20/2018 |
| 1/15/2019 | Final 2018 Report | 10/21/2018 - 12/31/2018 |
Polls
- See also: 2018 ballot measure polls
| Arizona Proposition 306, Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
| Suffolk University 9/27/2018 - 9/30/2018 | 39.2% | 32.2% | 28.6% | +/-4.4 | 500 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to [email protected]. | |||||||||||||||||||
Background
Proposition 200 (1998)
In 1998, voters approved a ballot initiative—Proposition 200—that established a public financing program for campaigns, created the Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC) to oversee the program, and enacted a 10 percent surcharge on fines and an annual fee on lobbyists to fund the program. Proposition 200 received the support of 51.2 percent of the electorate.[11]
Citizens Clean Election Commission
Proposition 200 created the Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC) to oversee the public financing program for campaigns. The CCEC has five commissioners—two Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent.[2]
Governor's Regulatory Review Council
Proposition 200 exempted the Citizens Clean Election Commission's (CCEC) from requiring the approval of the Governor's Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) to finalize rules for the public financing program. The Unlawful Contributions from Clean Election Accounts and Commission Rulemaking Requirements Measure would amend Proposition 200 to require the CCEC to get approval from the GRRC to finalize rules for the program.[14]
The GRRC is a seven-member council that was established in 1981 through an executive order of Gov. Bruce Babbitt (D). The state legislature codified the GRRC in 1986. The governor appoints six of the members of the GRRC to three-year terms. The seventh member, who also serves as the council's chair, is the director or assistant director of the state Department of Administration.[14]
Path to the ballot
- See also: Legislatively referred state statute
In Arizona, a referred statute must be passed by a simple majority vote in each house of the Arizona State Legislature during one legislative session.
Rep. Doug Coleman (R-16) introduced the ballot measure into the state legislature as House Concurrent Resolution 2007 (HCR 2007) during the 2018 legislative session.[4]
On February 20, 2018, the Arizona House of Representatives voted 34 to 25, with one member not voting, to approve HCR 2007.[4]
On May 3, 2018, the Arizona State Senate voted 17 to 12, with one member not voting, to pass an amended version of HCR 2007. The vote was along partisan lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing the bill.[4]
As HCR 2007 was amended in the state Senate, the state House needed to approve the bill again. On May 4, 2018, the Arizona House of Representatives voted 33 to 24, with three members not voting, to approve HCR 2007. The vote was along partisan lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing HCR 2007. As the bill was approved in both chambers, it was referred to the ballot for the election on November 6, 2018.[4]
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Litigation
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single subject; Did Proposition 306 violate the constitution's single-subject requirement? | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, saying that the single-subject requirement applied to constitutional amendments, but not statutory measures, and keeping Proposition 306 on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Louis Hoffman and Amy Chan | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition 306 violated the state's single-subject requirement for ballot measures. Proposition 306 addressed two subjects—how candidates can spend funds and the rulemaking powers of the commission. | Defendant argument: The single-subject requirement applied to legislative acts, which did not include statutes sent to voters, such as Proposition 306. |
Source: Tucson.com
Louis Hoffman and Amy Chan filed litigation in the Maricopa County Superior Court against the state over the certification of Proposition 306. Hoffman, a Democrat, and Chan, a Republican, served as commissioners on the Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC). Hoffman also drafted Proposition 200.[7]
Rep. J.D. Mesnard (R-17), the speaker of the state House, responded to the litigation, stating, "HCR 2007 [the ballot measure] improves the Clean Elections system by making the commission’s rulemaking process more accountable and stopping the flow of public taxpayer money to political parties, It’s disappointing that one former and one current Clean Elections commissioner would sue to prevent voters from having a say."[7]
Plaintiffs contended that the ballot measure violates the state's single-subject rule, which states that "every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith." Danny Adelman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, summarized their argument, saying, "One has to do with whether Clean Elections candidates can give money to a (political) party or another organization. The other provision has to do with subjecting the commission’s rulemaking to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council. They just have absolutely nothing to do with each other."[5][6][7] Adelman said that lawmakers put the two issues together "in the hope that voters are forced to take this all-or-nothing position that it will somehow pass."[15]
Assistant Attorney General Rusty Crandell, representing the state, said that the single-subject provision applied to legislative acts, which does not include issues sent to voters. Mike Liburdi, an attorney for Republican legislators, said there only needed to be a natural connection between the measure's provisions.[15]
On July 16, 2018, Judge Teresa Sanders of the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled in favor of the state legislature. Judge Sanders said the single-subject rule applied to constitutional amendments, but not statutory ballot measures. She stated, "If the framers of the Arizona Constitution had intended that statutory amendments submitted by either initiative or referendum be subjected to a separate amendment restriction, they could have done so. They did not."[16]
The ruling was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which declined to take up the case. The state Supreme Court said Proposition 306 needed to meet the single-subject requirement and did meet the requirement. Proposition 306, the court said, addressed one subject—changes to Proposition 200 (1998).[17]
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in Arizona
Poll times
In Arizona, all polling places are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.[18][19]
Registration requirements
- Check your voter registration status here.
To vote in Arizona, one must be a citizen of the United States and a resident of an Arizona county. A voter must be 18 years or older on or before Election Day.[20]
To be eligible to vote in an election one must register at least 29 days prior to the election. Individuals can register online, in person at the county recorder's office, or by mail.[21]
Automatic registration
Arizona does not practice automatic voter registration.
Online registration
- See also: Online voter registration
Arizona has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.
Same-day registration
Arizona does not allow same-day voter registration.
Residency requirements
Arizona law requires 29 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.
Verification of citizenship
Arizona requires voters to submit proof of citizenship with their voter registration application. According to the Arizona Secretary of State's website: "A registrant who attests to being a citizen but fails to provide proof of citizenship and whose citizenship is not otherwise verified will be eligible to vote only in federal elections (known as being a "federal only" voter)."[20] Accepted proof of citizenship include:[20]
- An Arizona Driver's License/Identification Number
- Indian Census Number, Bureau of Indian Affairs Card Number, Tribal Treaty Card Number, or Tribal Enrollment Number
- A photocopy of U.S. naturalization documents
- A photocopy of a birth certificate and supporting legal documentation (i.e., marriage certificate) if the name on the birth certificate is not the same as your current legal name.
- A photocopy of a U.S. passport.
- A photocopy of a Tribal Certificate of Indian Blood or Bureau of Indian Affairs Affidavit of Birth.
On March 30, 2022, Governor Doug Ducey (R) signed HB2492 into law. HB2492 requires that voters submitting registration forms not produced by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission submit proof of citizenship along with their registration forms. In the case of registration forms produced by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, HB2492 requires election officials to "use all available resources to verify the citizenship status" of applicants. Should officials be unable to verify a voter's citizenship status, that voter will be barred from voting in a presidential election or by mail in any election, pending submission of proof of citizenship. Should officials determine that a voter is not a citizen, officials will be required to forward the registration application to the county attorney and the attorney general for investigation. Officials who fail to comply with these requirements are guilty of a Class 6 felony.[22]
Verifying your registration
The site Voter View, run by the Arizona Secretary of State's office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.
Voter ID requirements
Arizona requires voters to present photo identification or two forms of non-photo identification while voting.[23][24]
The following were accepted forms of identification as of March 2023: Click here for the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission's page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information.
Voters can present one of the following forms of ID that contain the voter’s photograph, name, and address:
- Driver’s license
- U.S. federal, state, or local government-issued ID, issued with printed name and address
- Arizona ID card
- Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal ID
If a voter does not have one of the above forms of ID, the voter can present two of the following forms of ID that contain the voter’s name and address:
- Utility bill in the voter's name
- Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election
- Valid Arizona vehicle registration
- Arizona vehicle insurance card
- Indian census card
- Property tax statement
- Recorder's certificate or voter registration card
- Tribal enrollment card or other tribal ID
- Valid U.S. federal, state, or local government-issued ID with a printed name and address or
- Any mailing in the voter's name that is labeled "official election material"
Additionally, if a voter presents photo ID that does not list an address within the precinct in which he or she wants to cast a vote, that person may present the photo ID with one non-photo identification material from the second list above. The identification material should include the voter’s address.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Arizona State Legislature, "House Concurrent Resolution 2007," accessed February 22, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, "Our Team," accessed May 16, 2018
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedtext - ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Arizona State Legislature, "HCR 2007 Overview," accessed February 22, 2018
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Arizona Capitol Times, "Suit filed to block plan to restrict power of Clean Elections," May 15, 2018
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Arizona Daily Sun, "Clean Elections founder raises technicality on ballot issue," May 15, 2018
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 The Seattle Times, "Arizona lawsuit says measure undermines clean elections," May 15, 2018
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Arizona Secretary of State, "Proposition 306 - Sample Ballot," accessed September 11, 2018
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Tucson.com, "Arizona voter pamphlet filled with arguments paid for by special interest groups," July 19, 2018
- ↑ 11.00 11.01 11.02 11.03 11.04 11.05 11.06 11.07 11.08 11.09 11.10 11.11 11.12 Arizona Secretary of State, "2018 Arizona Voter Guide," accessed September 30, 2018 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "guide" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 Arizona Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance Committee Search," accessed April 2, 2018
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "Elections Calendar & Upcoming Events," accessed December 6, 2017
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Governor's Regulatory Review Council, "Council Information," accessed May 16, 2018
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 Tucson.com, "Judge to decide if lawmakers can skirt 1-subject rule on ballot referrals," July 13, 2018
- ↑ Tucson.com, "Judge rules Clean Elections ballot proposal can go before Arizona voters," July 17, 2018
- ↑ U.S. News, "Supreme Court Says Referendum Doesn't Violate Subject Limit," November 2, 2018
- ↑ Arizona Revised Statutes, "Title 16, Section 565," accessed July 18, 2024
- ↑ Arizona generally observes Mountain Standard Time; however, the Navajo Nation observes daylight saving time. Because of this, Mountain Daylight Time is sometimes observed in Arizona.
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Arizona Secretary of State, "Voters," accessed July 18, 2024
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "Arizona Voter Registration Instructions," accessed July 18, 2024
- ↑ Arizona Legislature, "HB2492," accessed March 14, 2023
- ↑ ArizonaElections.gov, "What ID Do I Need to Vote Quiz," accessed March 14, 2023
- ↑ FindLaw.com, "Arizona Revised Statutes Title 16. Elections and Electors § 16-579. Procedure for obtaining ballot by elector," accessed March 14, 2023
 |
State of Arizona Phoenix (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
