2008 Arizona Proposition 102

Last updated
Arizona Proposition 102 [1]
Flag of Arizona.svg
November 4, 2008

Marriage Protection Amendment
Amends the Arizona Constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman.
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svgYes1,258,35556.20%
Light brown x.svgNo980,75343.80%
Valid votes2,239,108100.00%
Invalid or blank votes00.00%
Total votes2,239,108100.00%

2008 Arizona Proposition 102 results map by county.svg

Arizona Proposition 102 was an amendment to the constitution of the state of Arizona adopted by a ballot measure held in 2008. It added Article 30 of the Arizona Constitution, which says: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." [2] The amendment added a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage to existing statutory bans in place since 1996. [3] In October 2014, Article 30 of the Arizona Constitution was struck down as unconstitutional in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and is no longer enforced by the state of Arizona, which now allows and recognizes same-sex marriages. [4]

Contents

Despite the court ruling, Article 30 still remains on the state's constitution, and on the Arizona State Legislature's website, there are no notes within the page for Article 30 that that part of the constitution was struck down or otherwise rendered inoperative. [5]

Overview

On August 26, 2008, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and Secretary of State Jan Brewer agreed that the ballot description would state that same-sex marriage was already prohibited by statute. [6] Incorporating the same provision into the Arizona Constitution was meant to prevent an Arizona court from ruling that the statute was invalid under the Arizona Constitution.

Along with similar measures in California (California Proposition 8 (2008)) and Florida (Florida Amendment 2 (2008)), Proposition 102 was decided by voters in the general election on November 4, 2008. The amendment passed by a margin of 56% in favor and 44% against.

Proposition 102 had no immediate impact because its definition of marriage was consistent with the existing statutory definition. [7] As an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona, the definition cannot be changed by the state legislature, and the possibility that a state court might find a state constitutional guarantee of same-sex couples' right to marry is eliminated.

Supporters and opponents

As of August 27, 2008 three committees related to Proposition 102 were registered with the Secretary of State: [8] YESforMarriage.com supporting Prop 102 was the one committee in support, and the two committees in opposition were No on Prop 102 and Arizona Together Opposed to Prop 102.

Supporters said that Proposition 102 was necessary to prevent judges changing the legal definition of marriage, as was done in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut and Iowa. Opponents said that Proposition 102 was unnecessary because same-sex marriage was already illegal in Arizona, and that there were more pressing issues facing Arizona; also they cited the issue of the separation of church and state. [9]

Miscellaneous

Proposition 102 was placed on the ballot via referendum rather than through the initiative process on the last day of the legislative session. Presiding State Senator Jack Harper defeated a filibuster on June 27, 2008 to place the proposed Constitutional Amendment on the ballot. Harper faced an ethics investigation over allegedly violating Senate rules by cutting off the microphones of two senators who were attempting to filibuster the bill. [10] Despite the fact that Harper admitted to cutting off the microphones intentionally, [11] a Senate ethics committee consisting of three Republicans and two Democrats voted 3–2, along strict party lines, to dismiss the charges. [12]

State Senators Jack W. Harper, Ronald Gould, Thayer Verschoor, and John Huppenthal stood out as the proponents of the Marriage Amendment to the Arizona State Constitution. The language of Prop 102 was adopted as a strike-everything amendment to Senator Gould's SCR1042.

In 2006, a more restrictive measure, Proposition 107, had been defeated in the general election.

Results

Arizona Proposition 102 [13]
ChoiceVotes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes1,258,35556.2
No980,75343.8
Total votes2,239,078100.00

By county

Election results by county.
Yes
No 2008AZprop102.png
Election results by county.
  Yes
  No
County [14] Yes (%)Yes (#)No (%)No (#)
Apache 76%18,04423%5,405
Cochise 63%30,49237%17,582
Coconino 50%26,84549%26,264
Gila 68%14,44332%6,884
Graham 80%9,40620%2,352
Greenlee 73%2,02427%744
La Paz 66%3,52434%1,785
Maricopa 55%741,79745%595,077
Mohave 66%43,25834%21,861
Navajo 75%25,31725%8,460
Pima 49%188,94251%195,148
Pinal 61%62,42539%39,457
Santa Cruz 52%6,41248%5,902
Yavapai 61%59,49739%38,546
Yuma 63%25,92937%15,286
Total56.2%1,258,35544%980,753

Full text

Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of Arizona, the House of Representatives concurring:

1. Article XXX, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be added as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:

ARTICLE XXX. MARRIAGE

SECTION 1. ONLY A UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED AS A MARRIAGE IN THIS STATE.

2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article XXI, Constitution of Arizona.

See also

Related Research Articles

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment, was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would legally define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA would also prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex (gay) or other unmarried homosexual couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2000 California Proposition 22</span> Referendum in California on same-sex marriage ban

Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 stating that marriage was between one man and one woman. In November 2008, Proposition 8 was also passed by voters, again only allowing marriage between one man and one woman.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 California Proposition 60</span>

Proposition 60 was an amendment of the Constitution of California, enacted in 2004, guaranteeing the right of a party participating in a primary election to also participate in the general election that follows. It was proposed by the California Legislature and approved by the voters in referendum held as part of the November 2004 election, by a majority of 67%.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 California Proposition 62</span> California ballot proposition

Proposition 62 was a California ballot proposition on the November 2, 2004 ballot. It failed to pass with 5,119,155 (46.1%) votes in favor and 5,968,770 (53.9%) against.

Same-sex marriage in California has been legal since June 28, 2013. The U.S. state first issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 16, 2008 as a result of the Supreme Court of California finding in the case of In re Marriage Cases that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the Constitution of California. The issuance of such licenses was halted from November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. The granting of same-sex marriages recommenced following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions</span>

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions of several different types passed, banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as "defense of marriage amendments" or "marriage protection amendments." These state amendments are different from the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage in every U.S. state, and Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, more commonly known as DOMA, which allowed the states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Arizona elections</span> Review of the elections

The Arizona state elections of 2006 were held on November 7, 2006. All election results are from the Arizona Secretary of State's office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Arizona Proposition 107</span> Summary of the ballot initiative

Arizona Proposition 107 was a proposed same-sex marriage ban, put before voters by ballot initiative in the 2006 general election. If passed, it would have prohibited the state of Arizona from recognizing same-sex marriages or civil unions. The state already had a statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 Texas Proposition 2</span>

Proposition 2 was a referendum for a state constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the Texas legislature and approved by the voters at the November 8, 2005 general election. The measure added a new provision to the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 32, which provides that "Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman", and "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." Texas thus became the nineteenth US state to adopt constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It was the most populous state to adopt a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage until California passed its ban in November 2008.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 8</span> Ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment passed in November 2008

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California elections</span>

The California state elections, November 2008 were held on November 4, 2008 throughout California. Among the elections taking place were those for the office of President of the United States, all the seats of California's delegation to the House of Representatives, all of the seats of the State Assembly, and all of the odd-numbered seats of the State Senate. Twelve propositions also appeared on the ballot. Numerous local elections also took place throughout the state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 11</span> Ballot measure in California

Proposition 11 of 2008 was a law enacted by California voters that placed the power to draw electoral boundaries for State Assembly and State Senate districts in a Citizens Redistricting Commission, as opposed to the State Legislature. To do this the Act amended both the Constitution of California and the Government Code. The law was proposed by means of the initiative process and was put to voters as part of the November 4, 2008 state elections. In 2010, voters passed Proposition 20 which extended the Citizen Redistricting Commission's power to draw electoral boundaries to include U.S. House seats as well.

Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591, 207 P.3d 48 (2009), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court. It resulted from lawsuits that challenged the voters' adoption of Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, which amended the Constitution of California to outlaw same-sex marriage. Several gay couples and governmental entities filed the lawsuits in California state trial courts. The Supreme Court of California agreed to hear appeals in three of the cases and consolidated them so they would be considered and decided. The supreme court heard oral argument in the cases in San Francisco on March 5, 2009. Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar stated that the cases will set precedent in California because "no previous case had presented the question of whether [a ballot] initiative could be used to take away fundamental rights".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2009 California Proposition 1F</span> California ballot measure

Proposition 1F of 2009 was a measure approved by California voters relating to the salaries of state officers. It was an amendment of the Constitution of California prohibiting pay raises for members of the State Legislature, the Governor, and other state officials during deficit years. It was proposed by the legislature and approved in a referendum held as part of the May 19, 2009 special election ballot, in which the California electorate also voted on five other propositions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">November 2012 California elections</span>

The California state elections was held on Election Day, November 6, 2012. On the ballot were eleven propositions, various parties' nominees for the United States presidency, the Class I Senator to the United States Senate, all of California's seats to the House of Representatives, all of the seats of the State Assembly, and all odd-numbered seats of the State Senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2009 Maine Question 1</span> Referendum on same-sex marriage

Maine Question 1 was a voter referendum conducted in Maine in the United States in 2009 that rejected a law legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. The measure passed 53–47% on November 3, 2009.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 59</span> California ballot proposition

California Proposition 59 is a non-binding advisory question that appeared on the 2016 California November general election ballot. It asked voters if they wanted California to work towards overturning the Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California elections</span>

The California state elections in 2020 were held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Unlike previous election cycles, the primary elections were held on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 California Proposition 1</span> Abortion and contraception proposition

Proposition 1, titled Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom and initially known as Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 (SCA 10), is a California ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment that was voted upon in the 2022 general election on November 8. Passing with more than two-thirds of the vote, the proposition amended the Constitution of California to explicitly grant the right to an abortion and contraceptives, making California among the first states in the nation to do so with Michigan and Vermont. The decision to propose the codification of abortion rights in the state constitution was precipitated in May 2022 by Politico's publishing of a leaked draft opinion showing the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, reversing judicial precedent that previously held that the United States constitution protected the right to an abortion.

The following is a list of ballot measures which were on the ballot for the 2022 United States elections. Some were held prior to the federal elections on November 8. Many were initiated by state legislatures, while others were initiated by public petitions.

References

  1. "State of Arizona Official Canvass: 2008 General Election – November 4, 2008" (PDF). Secretary of State of Arizona. 2008-12-01. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 December 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-13.
  2. "Senate Concurrent Resolution 1042". 2008-08-26.
  3. McKinley, Jesse (October 29, 2008). "Same-Sex Marriage on the Ballot in Arizona, a Second Time". The New York Times .
  4. Westfall, Julie (17 October 2014). "Arizona and Wyoming gay marriage bans struck down". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved 2 December 2014.
  5. "Article XXX: Marriage". Arizona State Legislature . Retrieved August 23, 2021.
  6. "Voters to be told gay vows already banned". The Arizona Daily Star. 2008-08-27. Archived from the original on 1 September 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
  7. "Arizona Revised Statutes 25–101". 2008-08-26.
  8. "Political Committees, Arizona Ballot Measure". 2008-08-26. Archived from the original on 2011-05-18.
  9. Walkup, Bob; Walkup, Beth. "Publicity Pamphlet Argument" Vote NO on Proposition 102, October 22, 2008.
  10. "State senator faces ethics probe in same-sex marriage debate". Tucson Citizen. 2008-07-29. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
  11. "Ethics Committee to question Harper in microphone flap". East Valley Tribune. 2008-07-28. Archived from the original on 21 September 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-17.
  12. "Ethics panel votes to investigate Harper". Arizona Capitol Times. July 28, 2008. Retrieved March 8, 2021.
  13. "State of Arizona Official Canvass: 2008 General Election – November 4, 2008" (PDF). Secretary of State of Arizona. 2008-12-01. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 December 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-13.
  14. "Arizona Secretary of State: 2008 general election – Ballot measures". Archived from the original on 2011-11-01. Retrieved 2010-04-20.