Judgment about ballot measure not an easy call
July 16, 2010 4:51 PM
Even before this fall's general election, a battle is raging over one of the measures that will appear on the ballot for voter consideration.
The battle is being waged in court over the summary description of Proposition 302, which was placed on the ballot by the Arizona Legislature. It seeks to redirect money from an 80-cent a pack tax on cigarettes from the First Things First program to general programs for the well-being of children.
Supporters of the voter-approved First Things First program - which created the tax and an administrative board to disburse money to various programs to benefit preschool age children - oppose Prop 302.
But what they are specifically challenging at this point is an “impartial analysis” of the proposition provided to voters by the Legislative Council. They have told a judge it skews the true nature of First Things First. He is expected to decide if they are correct before the end of July.
The reality is that any summary of something is necessarily limited, including the summary of the dispute in this editorial. And for that reason, voters should never rely solely on a summary description or analysis to make their decisions on ballot measures.
But the issue here is not with the inherent limitations of summaries, but whether the Legislative Council deliberately is trying to mislead the public.
It is a tough call. Even opponents of the description acknowledge there are no factual errors. It is rather the overall tone that they find misleading.
Perhaps this would be an issue better argued in the electoral forum rather that the judicial forum.
The battle is being waged in court over the summary description of Proposition 302, which was placed on the ballot by the Arizona Legislature. It seeks to redirect money from an 80-cent a pack tax on cigarettes from the First Things First program to general programs for the well-being of children.
Supporters of the voter-approved First Things First program - which created the tax and an administrative board to disburse money to various programs to benefit preschool age children - oppose Prop 302.
But what they are specifically challenging at this point is an “impartial analysis” of the proposition provided to voters by the Legislative Council. They have told a judge it skews the true nature of First Things First. He is expected to decide if they are correct before the end of July.
The reality is that any summary of something is necessarily limited, including the summary of the dispute in this editorial. And for that reason, voters should never rely solely on a summary description or analysis to make their decisions on ballot measures.
But the issue here is not with the inherent limitations of summaries, but whether the Legislative Council deliberately is trying to mislead the public.
It is a tough call. Even opponents of the description acknowledge there are no factual errors. It is rather the overall tone that they find misleading.
Perhaps this would be an issue better argued in the electoral forum rather that the judicial forum.
