From Ballotpedia | Voting on Business Regulation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||
| Ballot Measures | |||||
| By state | |||||
| By year | |||||
| Not on ballot | |||||
|
| Arizona Constitution |
|---|
|
| Preamble |
| Articles |
| 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 6.1 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • |
Arizona Proposition 200, also known as the Payday Loan Reform Act, was on the November ballot in Arizona as a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment. It was defeated.
The payday-loan initiative was primarily backed by the payday-loan business in the state, and was less restrictive than the Stop Payday Loans Initiative, sponsored by Rep. Marion McClure, D-30, and Sen. Debbie McCune Davis, D-14. That measure was withdrawn in early June when not enough signatures were being collected to qualify it for the ballot.[1]
| Arizona Payday Loan Reform | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| 1,271,717 | 59.6% | |||
| Yes | 860,607 | 40.4% | ||
Results according to the Arizona Secretary of State.[2]
The 100-word description filed with the Arizona Secretary of State's office for this initiated state statute reads:
| “ |
Arizonans use payday lending services everyday to meet unforeseen expenses and financial emergencies. The payday lending industry is set to be eliminated and the Arizona Legislature refuses to enact reforms to benefit borrowers while preserving this important financial option. This measure will bring dramatic pro-consumer reform to payday lending and preserve consumer choice. It includes a substantial rate cut, eliminates rolling-over principal to extend a loan, creates a repayment plan at no cost to customers that can't meet their obligations, and inhibits a borrower's ability to obtain more than one loan at a time.[3][4] |
” |
The payday lending industry was an $85 billion industry that provides short-term loans, which were usually secured with a check postdated to the borrower's next payday. The interest rate in the absence of regulation had typically worked out to an average of $15 per $100 borrowed on a two-week loan. The high interest rates were what had led to legislative attempts to regulate the industry. The practice was already illegal in fifteen states at the time of Proposition 200. In 2008, in addition to Prop 200, Ohioans voted on payday lending in Ohio Issue 5. In Ohio and Arizona together, the number of payday-lending branches outnumbers the Starbucks and McDonald's outlets combined.[5]
Under this proposal:
"Arizonans for Financial Reform" was supporting this initiative. It was filed in response to the Stop Payday Loans Initiative, which would eliminate all payday loans.
According to the website of another affiliated support organization, "Reform Arizona Payday Loans,"[6], thousands of Arizonans use payday loans responsibly to cover unexpected day-to-day expenses. But, the site warns, the Stop Payday Loans Initiative would take away this simple financial option in Arizona. Supporters of this measure argued that eliminating payday loans entirely would hurt many families financially, through higher banking fees, credit card late fees, and utility reconnect fees.[6]
Stan Barnes, a lobbyist and consultant to Americans for Financial Reform, a committee funded by the payday-loan industry, supported this measure and said the issue comes down to consumer choice.
"Payday-lending stores exist because customers in the real world make rational decisions about borrowing money short-term, and in many instances, payday loans are the least expensive option for people that have an emergency or unforeseen expense they have to deal with," Barnes said.
Supporters added that ending all payday loans in Arizona would also eliminate more than 2,500 Arizona jobs.[6]
Main arguments put forward in support of Proposition 200 included:
By the end of July, supporters of Prop. 200 had given about $8.7 million to a campaign committee organized to promote the initiative. The Arizona Republic reported that "nearly every cent...has been donated by - guess who? - a trade group representing payday lenders: the Arizona Community Financial Services Association."[8]
The website No On 200 : It's No Reform At All was established in opposition to this initiative.
Rep. Marian McClure (R-Tucson), chairwoman of the Stop Payday Loans Initiative campaign, said that payday loan reform, such as this Payday Loan Reform Act]], is nothing more than "window dressing."[9]
The Democratic Party of Arizona endorsed the Stop Payday Loans initiative and argued that payday loans are "by definition predatory and profit from financially vulnerable Arizona families by trapping them in unending cycles of debt."
Main arguments proposed in opposition to Proposition 200 included:
Pay day lenders did not go away so easily after the measure’s defeat, as they tried to convince lawmakers to let them stay in business during the fall of 2009. According to reports, the industry hired former state Attorney General Grant Woods to represent them in their efforts. According to Woods, after studying a proposal by the industry, he was convinced there was a place in the state of payday lenders.[11]
On June 23, its supporters turned in more than 265,000 signatures to the Arizona Secretary of State.
Arizonans for Responsible Lending filed a lawsuit over the ballot language. According to the lawsuit, voters might unknowingly approve a cap of 400 percent interest rates for payday loans if the Secretary of State did not clarify the descriptive language of Proposition 200 on the November's ballot.
Superior Court Judge Sam Myers ruled Aug. 27, 2008, that Secretary of State Janice Brewer did not have to clarify the language. Judge Myers said that the description of the ballot measure drafted by Secretary Brewer was technically accurate, and that with only 50 words to explain complex issues, choices have to be made.
![]() |
State of Arizona Phoenix (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2022 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
Categories: [Arizona 2008 ballot measures] [Business regulation, Arizona] [Business regulation, 2008] [Defeated, 2008]
ZWI signed: