AZ Prop 112 Failing


It’s nowhere near the time to celebrate yet, but this sneaky little devil of a proposition, which had no business being on the ballot is failing by 123 votes according to the AZ Secretary of State website.

The problem with Prop 112 is that it was deceptive from the very beginning. The state legislature unanimously voted this one through while trying to sell that it would give citizens initiatives “more time.” Nothing could be further from the truth. It gives LESS time for citizens to collect signatures, 2 months less to be exact.

It’s already hard enough to get a citizens initiative on the ballot, needing 10-15% of registered voters to sign in a state that covers a lot of real estate, but has three very spread out population centers. Now your state legislatures wants you to jump through more hoops to exercise the will of the people.

Let’s hope this initiative fails, but it’s within the margins for an automatic recount, so anything could happen when it comes to those numbers. Of course, Prop 203 saw almost all the headlines due to its close tally and controversy over the measure to legalize, in some forms, what has been a banned substance in Arizona for decades. Prop 112 has had a closer margin the entire time, but has hardly been reported on.

The worst part of this saga is that the local media, in some cases, is still getting the measure confused. Countless times, TV news stations around Phoenix have reported that Prop 112 would give more time to collect signatures.  It’s apparent they are not doing it on purpose because the wording was very deceptive and they’re just repeating what the measure says.

CameraFRAUD was the only group to come out against 112 and we continue that fight today. It’s out of our hands at this point, but just be aware that if the count turns the wrong way, that could make the difference between a citizens initiative (paid or volunteer) making the ballot and not.

Just one more time, we’ll post the only Anti-Prop 112 ad seen anywhere… down with 112!!

8 Responses to AZ Prop 112 Failing

  1. Coming in 2012, AZ State Legislature will require citizens to walk on water before their initiatives are approved…

  2. “As I have said before, the way these cameras are being used is the moral equivalent to the city hiring pick-pockets to prey upon those that let their guard down, and then guaranteeing the thieves they will not be prosecuted as long as they split the profits with the city.”

    http://www.oakridger.com/letter/x1615404449/Traffic-cameras-Whats-the-truth

  3. Man-In-Black says:

    Well done for CameraFraud on Prop 112. Let’s hope that the margin holds.

  4. jasonanthony says:

    This was the most important thing on the ballot that could have changed AZ history forever. Bunch of bullschist. If someone knows the name and contact information for all of those involved with sponsoring and/or voting for this peice of carp called legislation, please post the contact info. I will be sure to call and vote against any and all that supported this bunch of junk. And I hope somebody goes to their offices and tars and feathers their asses.

  5. jasonanthony says:

    Okay… it is still beyond me that people even on this website have only posted 4 comments (excluding mine). I talked to Jeff at the Secretary of State office and he indicated that the counties need to “canvas” the election results. He said that he Board of Supervisors would be in charge of that and that all of the canvasing by the counties is due by November 29th. At that time, if the vote falls within 200 votes (Prop 112 aka Satan’s proposed law is reported to be within 200 votes) it will be sent to a judge to sign off on a recount according to ARS 16-661. He indicated that there is no prescribed turn around time for the votes to be recounted, but that the office of the secretary of state is hoping to have it done by December 15th.

  6. jasonanthony says:

    16-661. Automatic recount; requirements; exemption

    A. A recount of the vote is required when the canvass of returns in a primary or general election shows that the margin between the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes for a particular office, or between the number of votes cast for and against initiated or referred measures or proposals to amend the Constitution of Arizona, is less than or equal to the lesser of the following:

    1. One-tenth of one per cent of the number of votes cast for both such candidates or upon such measures or proposals.

    2. Two hundred votes in the case of an office to be filled by state electors and for which the total number of votes cast is more than twenty-five thousand.

    3. Fifty votes in the case of an office to be filled by state electors and for which the total number of votes cast is twenty-five thousand or less.

    4. Two hundred votes in the case of an initiated or referred measure or proposal to amend the constitution.

    5. Fifty votes in the case of a member of the legislature.

    6. Ten votes in the case of an office to be filled by the electors of a city or town or a county or subdivision of a city, town or county.

    B. Subsection A does not apply to elections for precinct committeemen, school district governing boards, community college district governing boards, fire district boards or fire district chiefs or secretary-treasurers or boards of other special districts.

  7. […] go out to AZ State legislature. You have been a poor representative of the people and were out to deceive them with this proposition. Just remember that we are going to be watching you very closely in […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: