GOALS SIMILAR FOR PROPS. 104, 105

Both Initiatives Push People Power

Propositions 104 and 105 are both aimed at making it harder for the
Legislature to change or repeal citizen initiatives.

Which one is better?

It all depends on whom you ask. But the answer is closely tied to two
other items on the ballot -- Propositions 300 and 301 -- the
medical-marijuana proposals.

Last year, the Legislature gutted a medical-marijuana law that voters
passed 2-1 in 1996. The move inflamed voters and sparked both debates
this year.

Opponents of medical marijuana in the Legislature put Proposition 104
on the ballot. Supporters of medical marijuana gathered petition
signatures to qualify Proposition 105.

If both proposals pass, the measure with more votes will take effect.
Both have tough provisions. Proposition 104 would apply retroactively,
protecting every voter-approved law in state history. But Proposition
105 slaps more shackles on the Legislature, making it virtually
impossible to change a citizens initiative without referring it back
to the people.

Both propositions would prohibit the governor from vetoing any
voter-approved ballot measures. But that's where the similarity ends:

Proposition 104 would prevent the Legislature from repealing any
voter-approved measure for five years. After five years, it would
require a two-thirds vote. By contrast, Proposition 105 would forbid
the Legislature from ever overturning a ballot measure.

Proposition 104 would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to
change a measure or to transfer funds spent on the measure's behalf.
By contrast, Proposition 105 would require a three-fourths vote to
make changes or transfer funds, and the changes would have to "further
the purposes" of the measure.

In addition, Proposition 104 would:

Prevent the Legislature from using "emergency" legislation to change a
measure.

Allow the governor to veto legislative changes to a voter-approved
measure, and require a three-fourths vote of the Legislature to
override that veto.

Take effect retroactively, protecting all voter-approved
laws.

Other provisions of Proposition 105 would:

Allow the Legislature to refer any matter to the ballot, including
proposals to repeal citizen-approved measures.

Apply only to measures approved in November or later.

Both sides acknowledge each proposal contains improvements.

"(Proposition) 104 is a vast improvement over the status quo," said
Jack LaSota, a former Arizona attorney general and the legal counsel
for the Voter Protection Alliance, which is supporting 105, known as
the Voter Protection Act.

"But 105 is better because ... it eliminates the sort of arrogant "we
know better than you' mentality in the Legislature. That power is
watered down in 104."

But critics say it's the Voter Protection Act that smacks of
arrogance.

"I think you have to be pretty darned arrogant to say, "I can draft a
bill perfectly the first time without unintended consequences,' " said
Rep. Mike Gardner, R-Tempe, who sponsored the resolution that put
Proposition 104 on the ballot.

"105 is bad because it makes it virtually impossible for an initiative
to ever be changed."

Bart Turner, executive director of the Valley Citizens League, calls
Proposition 105 a "poorly written" law. The three-quarters
supermajority is too tough, Turner said, because legislative
amendments designed to fix mistakes could be defeated by opponents who
want to kill the entire law.

LaSota counters that legislators are free to refer anything back to
the ballot to allow voters to approve changes.

Turner, who wrote Proposition 104, says the three-fourths
supermajority gives too much power to a handful of legislators --
eight senators -- who could block any changes. The two-thirds vote
standard in Proposition 104 provides a higher bar than a simple
majority without making changes too difficult.

And he points out 105 only affects initiatives on the November ballot and in
the future, while 104 would protect everything. Turner suggested that
reveals the motives behind the Voter Protection Act: to protect the
medical-marijuana law.

"They are obviously not trying to protect the voice of the people,"
Turner said. "The only piece of existing law that 105 would protect is
the drug initiative."

He also criticizes the provision requiring any amendment to "further
the purpose" of the measure. Turner says the language is too broad and
leaves all legislative amendments open to court challenge.

But LaSota says Proposition 104 isn't strong enough because it allows
the Legislature to pass amendments that essentially gut voter-approved
measures.

He adds that legislators would not have put Proposition 104 on the
ballot if it were not for the Voter Protection Act. Lawmakers added
Proposition 104 to the ballot, LaSota says, in a classic "bait and
switch" move to confuse voters.

"I doubt that 104 would be on the ballot but for 105," LaSota said.
"The Legislature correctly discerned that 105 would provoke a debate
that the people would win and the Legislature would lose."

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has joined Attorney General
Grant Woods and former Secretary of State Richard Mahoney in endorsing
the Voter Protection Act, agreed.

SIDEBAR: Summary of provisions

Proposition 104: Prohibits the governor from vetoing a voter-approved
measure. Prohibits the Legislature from repealing a voter-approved
measure for five years. After five years, it would require a
two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Allows the governor to veto
legislative changes to a voter-approved measure and requires a
three-fourths vote of the Legislature to override that veto.

Proposition 105: Prohibits both the governor and the Legislature from
vetoing a voter-approved measure. Requires a three-fourths vote of the
Legislature to amend a citizen-approved measure. Allows the
Legislature to refer any matter to the ballot, including proposals to
repeal citizen-approved measures.

Prop. 105 supporters There are no organized campaigns to support or oppose
Proposition 104. Nor is there an organized campaign to oppose Proposition
105. But a campaign committee has been organized to support Proposition 105,
and it is called the Voter Protection Alliance. According to the Secretary
of State's Office, there are two contributors who have raised $400,000:
John Sperling of Phoenix, chairman of the Apollo Group of Phoenix, which
owns 88 private colleges nationwide under the name University of Phoenix:
$150,000. Peter Sperling of Phoenix, son of John Sperling and an executive
with the Apollo Group: $250,000.

Chris Moeser can be reached at 444-8069 or at chris.moeser@pni.com via
e-mail.

Checked-by: Patrick Henry