Arizona Proposition 202, Minimum Wage Increase Initiative (2006)
| Arizona Proposition 202 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Minimum wage |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Initiated state statute |
Origin |
Arizona Proposition 202 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in Arizona on November 7, 2006. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported increasing the minimum wage to $6.75 per hour beginning on January 1, 2007, and requiring annual cost of living increases. |
A "no" vote opposed increasing the minimum wage to $6.75 per hour beginning on January 1, 2007, and requiring annual cost of living increases. |
Overview
The measure was designed to increase the minimum wage to $6.75 an hour. Thereafter, the minimum wage was set to change each year based on increases in the Consumer Price Index. Prior to Proposition 202, Arizona did not have a minimum wage law and deferred to the federal minimum wage, which was $5.15 an hour in 2006.[1]
Proposition 202 also provided that counties, cities, and towns can enact ordinances to regulate the minimum wage and benefits, as long as the ordinances don't decrease the local minimum wage below the state minimum wage rate.[1]
In 2016, voters in Arizona approved Proposition 206, which was designed to increase the minimum wage to $10.00 in 2017; $10.50 in 2018; $11.00 in 2019; and $12.00 in 2020.[1]
Aftermath
House Bill 2280 (2013)
On April 29, 2013, Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed House Bill 2280 (HB 2280) into law.[2] The bill was designed to preempt local governments from requiring employers to provide wages or benefits above the state requirement.[3]
HB 2280 passed 32 to 27, with one member not voting, in the Arizona House of Representatives on March 4, 2013. Of the chamber's Republicans, 32 voted yes and four voted no. Of the chamber's Democrats, 23 voted no and one did not vote. The Arizona Senate approved the bill 17 to 11, with two members not voting, on April 18, 2013. All 17 Senate Republicans voted yes, while 11 Democrats voted no and two Democrats did not vote.[2]
On July 1, 2015, Judge Roger Brodman of the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that HB 2280 violated the Arizona Voter Protection Act (Proposition 105) in Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition v. Arizona.[4]
House Bill 2579 (2016)
On May 11, 2016, Gov. Doug Ducey (R) signed House Bill 2579 (HB 2579) into law.[5] HB 2579 was designed to preempt local governments from requiring employers to provide non-wage compensation, including fringe benefits, welfare benefits, child care plans, paid sick leave, paid vacation time, severance, commissions, bonuses, retirement plans, and pensions, above the state requirement.[6]
The Arizona Senate approved HB 2579 in a vote of 18 to 11, with one member not voting, on April 11, 2016. All 18 Senate Republicans voted for the bill, while 11 Democrats voted against the bill and one Democrat did not vote. The Arizona House of Representatives approved the bill 34 to 20, with six members not voting, on May 6, 2016. Of the House Republicans, 34 voted yes and two did not vote. Of the House Democrats, 20 voted no and four did not vote.[5]
On August 30, 2017, Judge Roger Brodman of the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that HB 2579 violated the Arizona Voter Protection Act (Proposition 105) in UFCW Local 99 v. Arizona.[7]
Lawsuits
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: House Bill 2280, enacted in 2013, violated the state's legislative alteration law. | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The plaintiffs and defendants reached an agreement, leading to the judge issuing a stipulated judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition, Steven Levin, and Nicole Marie Ruiz | Defendant(s): State of Arizona and Attorney General Mark Brnovich |
| Plaintiff argument: HB 2280 violated the state's legislative alteration law, as the bill neither received a three-fourths vote or furthered Proposition 202's purpose. Therefore, municipalities should be permitted to increase the local minimum wage. | Defendant argument: The defendants concurred with the plaintiffs that HB 2280 violated the legislative alteration law. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: House Bill 2579, enacted in 2016, violated the state's legislative alteration law. | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating HB 2579 | |
| Plaintiff(s): UFCW Local 99, Lauren Kuby, David Schapira, Kolby Granville, Regina Romero, Eva Putzova, Eric Meyer, Lela Alston, Richard Andrade, Reginald Bolding, Mark Cardenas, Ken Clark, Diego Espinoza, Charlene Fernandez, Randall Friese, Rosanna Gabaldon, Sally Ann Gonzales, Albert Hale, Matt Kopec, Jonathan Larkin, Stefanie Mach, Juan Jose Mendez, Lisa Otondo, Celeste Plumlee, Rebecca Rios, Macario Saldate, Ceci Velasquez, Bruce Wheeler, Katie Hobbs, David Bradley, Olivia Cajero Bedford, Lupe Contreras, Andrea Dalessandro, Steve Farley, Barbara McGuire, Robert Meza, Catherine Miranda, and Martin Quezada | Defendant(s): State of Arizona |
| Plaintiff arguments: HB 2579 violated the state's legislative alteration law, as the bill neither received a three-fourths vote or furthered Proposition 202's purpose | Defendant arguments: Proposition 202's use of the term benefits was not defined and could be interpreted in different ways. |
Sources: Maricopa County Superior Court (Case: CV2015-004240), Maricopa County Superior Court (Case: CV2016-092409)
Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition v. Arizona (2015)
Judge Roger Brodman of the Maricopa County Superior Court signed off on Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition v. Arizona on July 1, 2015.[4] The plaintiffs and defendants came to an agreement, declaring that House Bill 2280 (HB 2280), which was designed to preempt local minimum wage ordinances, violated the state's legislative alteration law and was therefore invalid.[8] Ryan Anderson, a spokesperson for Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R), said, "We are here to enforce the law, not to make policy. This is an example where we believe the voters were clear."[9]
On April 10, 2015, the Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition filed litigation against the State of Arizona, contending that House Bill 2280 (HB 2280) conflicted with Proposition 202. The lawsuit argued that, since Proposition 202 provided that local governments could increase the minimum wage within their jurisdictions, HB 2280, which prohibited local minimum wages, violated Arizona's legislative alteration law.[10]
In Arizona, the state legislature is prohibited from amending voter-approved initiatives unless the amending bill receives a three-fourths vote and furthers the initiative's purpose. Voters enacted the legislative alteration law via Proposition 105 in 1998. The Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition contended that HB 2280 neither received a three-fourths vote or furthered Proposition 202's purpose.[10]
UFCW Local 99 v. Arizona (2019)
Judge Joshua Rogers of the Maricopa County Superior Court decided UFCW Local 99 v. Arizona on August 30, 2017.[7] Judge Rogers ruled that House Bill 2579 (HB 2579), which was designed to preempt local governments from requiring nonwage benefits above the state requirement, was in conflict with Proposition 202. Defendants appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower's court ruling on February 5, 2019.[11]
Due to the Arizona Voter Protection Act (Proposition 105), which voters approved in 1998, the state legislature is prohibited from amending initiatives unless the bill receives a three-fourths vote and furthers the initiative's purpose. Plaintiffs, including the union United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 99 and 32 Democratic lawmakers, contended that HB 2579 did not receive a three-fourths vote or further Proposition 202's purpose.[12]
The State of Arizona was named the defendant in the case. Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R), as a representative of the state, argued that Proposition 202's reference to benefits, which did not define the term, allowed for different interpretations. Judge Rogers responded to this argument, stating, "The State ignores the obvious and naturally understood similarity between the ordinary meaning of "wages" and "benefits," as well as the obvious and natural meaning seen within the broader context of a labor statute such as this, and instead assigns "benefits" an unnatural meaning based solely upon the eight preceding subparts of (the 2006 initiative) that effectively turns the canon on its head and defies common sense."[12][13]
The state appealed the case to the Arizona Court of Appeals. On February 5, 2019, the appeals court sided with the superior court, concluding, "H.B. 2579 explicitly prohibits what the Minimum Wage Act permits, and thus, the two statutes cannot be harmonized. Because H.B. 2579 impliedly amends and repeals a portion of the Minimum Wage Act, it violates the VPA’s express limitations on legislative changes to voter-approved laws."[14]
Election results
|
Arizona Proposition 202 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
987,347 | 65.37% | ||
| No | 523,070 | 34.63% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 202 was as follows:
| “ | REPEALING SECTION 23-362, AMENDING BY ADDING NEW SECTION 23-362 RELATING TO THE ARIZONA MINIMUM WAGE ACT. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | RAISES MINIMUM WAGE TO $6.75 PER HOUR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2007, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDES YEARLY ANNUAL COST OF LIVING INCREASES; REQUIRES THAT EMPLOYERS POST NOTICE ABOUT EMPLOYEE RIGHTS; ESTABLISHES PENALTIES AND PERMITS PRIVATE LAWSUITS AND ENFORCEMENT BY THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Path to the ballot
In Arizona, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Arizona Secretary of State, "2006 Ballot Proposition Guide," accessed August 30, 2017
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Arizona Legislature, "HB 2280 Overview," accessed August 30, 2017
- ↑ Arizona Legislature, "House Bill 2280," accessed August 30, 2017
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Maricopa County Superior Court, "Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition v. Arizona," accessed August 30, 2017
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Arizona Legislature, "HB 2579 Overview," accessed August 30, 2017
- ↑ Arizona Legislature, "House Bill 2579," accessed August 30, 2017
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Maricopa County Superior Court, "UFCW Local 99 v. Arizona," accessed August 30, 2017
- ↑ Maricopa Superior Court, "Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition v. Arizona Stipulated Judgement," July 1, 2017
- ↑ Eastern Arizona Courier, "Arizona cities win back right to set minimum wage," July 14, 2017
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 AZCentral, "Flagstaff group sues to raise minimum wage," April 14, 2015
- ↑ KGUN 9, "Court: Arizona cities can require minimum employee benefits," February 5, 2019
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 Miami Herald, "Judge tosses 2016 law barring city employer benefits rules," August 30, 2017
- ↑ Daily Miner, "Arizona judge tosses 2016 law barring city employer benefits rules," August 31, 2017
- ↑ Arizona Court of Appeals, "Meyer v. Arizona," February 5, 2019
 |
State of Arizona Phoenix (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | 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 |
