Lawmaker proposes limiting public's power to change constitution

HCR 2001 would require proposed amendments to get at least 60 percent of the popular vote for approval.

But even if Rep. Phil Lovas, R-Peoria, can get a majority of lawmakers to put the proposal on the 2016 ballot, he would still need to convince a simple majority of voters to agree to limit their own lawmaking powers.

Lovas said it should be more difficult to amend the document than simply getting one yes vote more than the other side.

“If you’re going to amend the constitution, I think you need to have broad-based support, and not be able to run an advertising campaign that may have disinformation in order to barely sneak across the line,” he said.

Had what Lovas proposes already been in effect, several constitutional changes voters approved during the last few elections never would have been. These range from limits the tax value of property to a “health-care freedom act” designed to give Arizonans an opportunity to reject federal health-care mandates.

But Lovas, who supported many of the measures that limped across the finish line at well below 60 percent, said he’s not concerned the higher vote requirement would have doomed those causes to the scrap heap.

Despite decrying expensive “disinformation” campaigns for ballot measures, Lovas said those marginal proposals might have passed anyway if sponsors had just spent more money campaigning for them.

“If they need to get to 60 percent, they’re going to raise more money and spend more money to get there,” he said.

The idea is getting a decidedly negative response from some who have been actively involved in pushing for constitutional changes.

Jeff Singer, a doctor, was at the forefront of Proposition 106, the 2010 health-care amendment that prohibits any state law or rule compelling any individual or employer to participate in any health-care system.

It also guaranteed the right to pay directly for health care, versus having insurance, and prohibits the state from restricting the sale of private health-care insurance.

It passed with 55.3 percent of the vote.

“I can understand their point of view,” Singer said of proponents. “You don’t want to make it too easy to make radical changes to the constitution.”

But Singer said there already are hurdles.

To even get a constitutional change in front of voters requires either approval by both the House and Senate, or for supporters to gather signatures equivalent of 10 percent of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election.

For the 2016 election, the bare minimum is 226,963. And given the number of signatures that end up being voided for one reason or another, the more realistic goal is 300,000 or more.

“Making it even tougher I think goes against the entire spirit of the initiative or referendum process,” Singer said.

That’s also the assessment of Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy.

Her group was behind getting voters to approve Proposition 102 in 2008 to constitutionally define marriage in Arizona as solely between one man and one woman.

It passed with 56 percent of the vote.

“I strongly support the right of the citizens to petition the government and to pass measures through initiative and referendum,” Herrod said. “Any measure that curtails or diminishes the right of citizens to petition the government concerns me.”

Jack Biltis, the architect behind Proposition 122, allowing the state to reject unconstitutional federal actions, also had concerns. The 2014 amendment passed with just 51.2 percent of the vote.

“The reason constitutional amendments are often pursued is because the courts have taken over a lot of power,” he said.

Sandy Bahr, lobbyist for the Sierra Club of Arizona said her organization is opposed to anything that makes it more difficult for voters to craft their own ballot measures.

Bahr said if there is a problem, it is with the fact that a simple majority of lawmakers can propose constitutional measures and put them on the ballot, all without getting a single signature, which is what happened with Prop 122.