The challenges to ballot propositions just keep coming.

Now there is a lawsuit to ax Proposition 102, which would make it harder to limit hunting and fishing, and another to change the official analysis of Proposition 203, restricting bilingual education.

That makes half a dozen propositions that are under legal fire, and the deadlines for printing voter guides and ballots are fast approaching.

Proposition 102 amends the Arizona Constitution to require the state to manage wildlife in public trust. It also requires two-thirds approval for initiatives that permit, limit or prohibit the taking of wildlife, or the methods or seasons for doing so.

Attorney Stephanie Nichols-Young, who represents opponents, argues that Proposition 102 violates the requirement for constitutional amendments to stick to one subject.

A hearing is scheduled today in Maricopa County Superior Court on the suit she filed to boot the measure off the ballot.

Supporters pooh-pooh her lawsuit as frivolous. Proposition 102 “will stay on the ballot, and we’ll continue on our way,” said Mike Hull, spokesman for Arizonans for Wildlife Conservation.

He says the measure will safeguard wildlife by ensuring that the Arizona Game and Fish Department isn’t handcuffed by voter-imposed restrictions. But Tom Woods, a former member of the State Game and Fish Commission, says the proposition could backfire, thwarting propositions that hunters want. The battle over Proposition 203 is over wording: the official analysis of the proposition in the voters guide.

A civil-rights organization argues that the analysis of the controversial anti-bilingual education initiative is “false and misleading.”

The Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a lawsuit asking the state Supreme Court to reject the analysis, which was adopted by a bipartisan panel of legislators, and require new wording that is neutral, said Hector Villagra, a lawyer for the plaintiff. Proposition 203 seeks to severely limit bilingual education in Arizona by requiring virtually all immigrant children with limited English skills to attend a one-year English immersion program. If there isn’t enough time to reword the analysis, which is legally required to be evenhanded, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund might ask the court to throw out the initiative altogether, Villagra said. The lawsuit is a “last ditch effort” to keep the initiative off the ballot, responded Hector Ayala, co-chairmain of English for the Children, which supports Proposition 203.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that part of the analysis of another ballot measure – Proposition 202, the Citizens Growth Management Initiative – is biased. In that case, the paragraphs in question may be dropped rather than revised.

State Elections Director Jessica Funkhouser said the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund might have waited too long to challenge the analysis. The pamphlet is being proofread and has already been translated into Spanish, she said. Meanwhile, the State Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments on three propositions, all challenged over the “single-subject” rule: changes in managing and protecting state trust land; a proposal to abolish the state income tax and a revised method for setting telephone rates.

But even on a fast track, the court won’t rule before the statewide voters guides have to go to the printers.

“We’re extremely concerned about frustrating or confusing the voters,” Funkhouser said.



Comments are closed.