Majority Rule Makes Sense for Arizona Taxpayers

Exclusive to The Arizona Conservative

By Kristina Rasmussen
Oct. 31, 2008

Here's a simple question for you: Should a minority of voters be allowed to pass tax hikes on all Arizonans?

As one taxpayer to another, I hope you answered, "No, it's just not right for a small group to impose its will on everyone
else." Unfortunately, that's been happening in Arizona for
awhile now.

In 2006, Proposition 203 (a tobacco tax hike and health care spending package) passed with 53 percent of the vote. Majority rule, right? Not quite. The measure only received "yes" votes from 793,312 voters out of 2,568,401 eligible voters, or about 31 percent. Since 2000, four other propositions have been passed under similar "minority rule" conditions.

Proposition 105, otherwise known as "Majority Rules," would address this loophole by placing a strong majority vote requirement on future plans to increase taxes or spending via the ballot box. Specifically, a vote of support from a majority of qualified electors would be necessary to pass an initiative that imposes higher taxes or spending. For taxes to rise, 50 percent of registered voters must turn out and the measure must get 50 percent of the votes before it can take effect.

This isn't a new idea. Oregon, for example, has a "double
majority" protection against tax hikes pushed via the initiative
process. Steve Buckstein, a senior policy analyst with Oregon's nonpartisan Cascade Policy Institute, explains the need for his state's "double majority" requirement this way: "Before the rule was in place, taxes could be imposed by a mere 20 percent, or 10percent, or even a smaller percentage of all registered voters.

Now, it takes at least 25 percent of all registered voters to
impose certain property taxes in other than a general election.

Looked at this way, if anything, the double majority rule isn't
flawed because it places the bar too high, but because it places the bar too low."

Buckstein also notes the often-overlooked fact that legislatures (including the U.S. Congress) generally require quorums of their own members before taking any votes. Indeed, Congress has deliberated the Proposition 105 concept, as part of the Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Amendment, which has passed the House and Senate in recent years (but not in the same Congress), would require a majority of the whole number of
lawmakers, not just those present and voting, to increase taxes.

Meanwhile, states have addressed the "minority rule" concern by passing a supermajority requirement. In 1996, Florida voters approved an amendment that required new state taxes or fees to be approved by two-thirds of those voting, rather than a simple majority. In 2006, Floridians approved an amendment to require least 60 percent of the voters of the state voting on any measure (not just for taxes and fees) for it to pass. The impetus for the latter change was a narrowly-focused amendment that would regulate how pigs are treated while breeding. Many Floridians felt that their ballot box was being hijacked by special interests.

With Proposition 105, Arizona residents have the chance to
ensure that a broad consensus is reached for policy changes
affecting the state's tax and spending obligations. If it takes
a two-thirds vote from the Arizona legislature to increase
taxes, it makes sense to adopt a similar safeguard against tax
hikes via the ballot box.

Opponents will argue that this measure will set too strict a
standard for voting. Arizona's taxpayers should respond that
decisions to take more of their money away shouldn't be made lightly. A more careful, thoughtful process will help prevent rash decisions that could hit family and business budgets hard.

The bottom line is that a minority of voters shouldn't be
allowed to pass tax hikes on all Arizonans. Proposition 105
would help reinstate majority rule in the electoral calculus,
and it deserves support from taxpayers across the state.


Kristina Rasmussen is Director of Government Affairs for the 362,000-member National Taxpayers Union (www.ntu.org), a nonpartisan citizen group founded in 1969 to work for lower taxes and smaller government at all levels.