For analysis on both, I'm by Arizona public media's
Alisa Resnick and Jake Steinberg who have covered
the propositions on NPR 89.1.
My thanks to both of you for being here.
Now let's begin with prop 207,
which you focused on Alisa.
So remind our viewers how we change the state's laws
when it comes to marijuana.
- Yeah, Lorraine, so the new proposition prop 207
or the Smart and Safe Act would decriminalize
recreational use and allow for recreational sale
here in Arizona.
Now, medical marijuana has been legal in the States
since 2010.
More than 250,000 medical marijuana card holders
here in the state.
So proponents to this bill argue that the marijuana industry
is already here.
So this would be about decriminalizing recreational use
and allowing for the state to benefit from that revenue
coming from recreational sale.
This is the second time the state has tried
to pass the bill.
A similar measure failed narrowly in 2016.
- So given that this proposition
had already come before voters, they're having to tailor
their message differently.
There's also not the same funding sources for or against.
How was the campaign different this year?
- Well, this year, the campaign also focused
on a criminal justice aspect of drug policy.
It does have an expungement clause,
which would allow people who were previously convicted
of marijuana related felonies to apply for expungements.
- The polling shows this is a very close race
when it comes to this proposition.
Are the opponents have any success
getting their message across?
- The opponents are the same opponents as were present
in 2016, they argue that there is a public safety aspect
to this bill as well.
And that there is, hey do point to the amount of money
coming from the marijuana industry as being
sort of a red flag in the sense that this is not necessarily
coming from Arizona voters.
- Recreational marijuana use though,
would still be a federal crime.
So if this comes to fruition and if it passes,
how do law enforcement agencies manage this,
if it's legal in the state,
but illegally when it comes to the federal government.
- Yeah, that will be a difficult question.
Proponents argue that these laws have had time at them
since the first States, Colorado and Washington state
legalized in 2012.
They argue that states like Arizona have had time
to really refine these bills specific
to how federal law enforcement deals with it
versus state law enforcement.
There are still a lot of questions, as you mentioned.
And for example, Santa Rita just passed an ordinance
that would ban recreational stores in the city itself.
And so local law enforcement and local governments
do still have little bit of that power to kind of decide,
even if this bill does pass in the state of Arizona,
what it'll actually look like in their cities.
- All right, thank you, Alisa.
Let's move on now to prop 208.
Jake, proponents of this measure try to get it on the ballot
in 2018, but it failed.
So tell us what happened and how they managed
to succeed this time around
so voters will be able to decide on this.
- Sure, so I mean, to get a measure on the ballot,
you need to get a certain number of signatures
on your petition.
And Arizona law says that petition
needs to have 100 word maximum description
of the measure and what it would do.
It doesn't have to have everything it would do,
but it's gotta have sort of the key provisions there.
And that's kind of what sunk the 2018 measure.
The Arizona Supreme court ruled that the measure
or the language on the measures petition
was misleading because it said that there would be
a percent increase and not a percentage point increase.
So technicality, but it wasn't enough to get it
struck from the ballot.
So this year's measure is nearly identical
and it almost was struck from the ballot for the same reason
as a Maricopa County superior court judge
had the same ruling that the language was misleading,
but this time actually the Arizona Supreme court
ruled the opposite way.
They said, no, it's fine, voters can decide on this.
- Now this has been referred to as a tax on the wealthy,
but what is the income threshold?
And then how much money would it actually generate?
- Sure.
So, like I said, it's pretty much identical
to the measure that was put forward in 2018.
It would be a 3.5 percentage point increase on high earners.
So that's income over $250,000 for an individual filer
and income over $500,000 for a married couple
or someone filing as head of household.
And so the joint legislative budget committee,
which reviews every ballot measure
has found that the measure would raise $827 million
in its first year, which is about 13% of what the state
spent on education this year.
And that figure is less than some of the supporters
have said, they're throwing around figures
like a billion dollars, but it's actually more
than what some opponents of the measure say would raise.
- One of the criticisms has been is that this
would negatively affect small businesses.
So what's the argument there?
- Yeah, absolutely.
So a lot of there's some small businesses, I should say,
file income under those individual rates,
pass through income, they call it.
The argument goes that you are raising taxes here
on a small businesses,
even higher than the corporate tax rate.
Arizona's corporate tax rate is about 4.9%.
The rate would for higher earners would raise from 4.5%
all the way to 8%.
And some business groups argue
that this is gonna really negatively affect
Arizona's economy.
When analysis from the Goldwater Institute,
sort of libertarian think tank here in Arizona,
estimated that the measure could result
in over 100,000 jobs lost over the next decade
due to the costs from small businesses
is going to their employees.
- Now, if this passes, then it would become law,
but there has to be some stipulations about how it's written
into the state tax code.
So what does this tell us about how the funds
can actually be spent, should it pass?
- The language of this measure says that half of the money
raised would go to schools as grants for hiring teachers
and increasing teacher salaries.
And then another quarter would go to schools,
again, as grants to hire and an increase pay
for what they call student support personnel.
So that's counselors and bus drivers,
cafeteria workers, et cetera.
And then the rest would go to funds for teacher training
and retention programs.
- All right, my thanks to both of you for your reporting.
We look forward to more on this as the election draws
much closer here in the days ahead.
And on election night, Alisa and Jake will track the results
on props 207 and 208.
You can listen for updates on NPR 89.1
and follow their coverage on azpm.org.