2 propositions risky for Voter Protection Act

Two propositions before voters next month might decide more than what's in their ballot language. They could herald cracks in the state's 12-year-old Voter Protection Act.

Propositions 301 and 302 seek to take money from two state programs - a land-conservation fund and the First Things First early-childhood program - and redirect the funding to the state budget.

Since the programs were approved at the ballot, they fall under the shield of the Voter Protection Act, meaning it would take another vote of the people to alter them.

Many lawmakers have chafed at the restrictions of the 1998 law, saying it takes away their flexibility to deal with the state's financial and policy realities. The state's budget crisis, with an $825 million deficit looming, has provided the perfect opportunity to test the public's commitment to the act.

If the two measures pass, and lawmakers can control dollars that currently are off limits, expect more attempts to loosen the Voter Protection Act, say both opponents and proponents of the law.

Even if the two propositions fail or there is a mixed result, there likely will be pressure to alter it.

"Regardless of the fate of the two ballot measures, there will always be runs on the act," said David Leibowitz, spokesman for the No on 302 campaign. "There will always be a need for more money."

Lawmakers say there is a larger issue besides the pressing need for more money: The Voter Protection Act takes away their ability to legislate.

"We elect people to make decisions," said state Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa. The act, he added, "ties our hands."

Rightly so, respond people such as Sandy Bahr, who said the act was created after lawmakers undid the provisions of a voter-approved law allowing medical marijuana.

"One thing has not changed in the last 12 years since the act passed, and that is the public is very skeptical about what the Legislature does," said Bahr, director of the Grand Canyon chapter of the Sierra Club.

The club has been an ardent user of Arizona's initiative process, and the Voter Protection Act shields decisions made at the polls.

She's convinced the Republican-controlled Legislature will continue to press for ways to alter voter decisions.

"This branch of government wants more power, and the Voter Protection Act is a check on that," she said.

Lawmakers say they will still push for changes to the act, although the outcome of the ballot measures next month might color their approach.

"It should be repealed at best," said House Majority Leader John McComish, R-Phoenix. "At the least, it should be amended."

As McComish sees it, "there is no idea that should be cast in stone."

Technically, laws that have voter protection can be altered by lawmakers, but it takes a three-quarters vote of the Legislature, and any changes must advance the cause of the measure. That makes it nearly impossible, which is why sending the issue back to the voters is the path lawmakers took with the First Things First and land-conservation-grant programs this year.

The propositions, if approved, would free up $469 million for this year's budget.

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema said that Democrats and Republicans worked on a compromise two years ago that would have required any voter-protected change to be reviewed every eight years. But the idea fell apart before it could get anywhere.

Sinema, D-Phoenix, said she's certain the Legislature will continue efforts to kill the Voter Protection Act, especially for matters that lock in where tax dollars should be spent.

"They just ideologically don't believe that people of this state should vote in taxes," she said of her GOP colleagues.

Count Pearce among the legislators seeking a repeal of the law.

"There's been an appetite down here (at the Capitol) for a long time," Pearce said. He attempted a repeal bill this year, to no avail.

But efforts to roll back the law must be balanced carefully with the wishes of the voters, lawmakers say. After all, attempts to undo the act would suggest that the voters were wrong in the first place.