Other transcripts

Transcripts

November 4, 2002

Host: Michael Grant
Topics:
Arizona Ballot Propositions -
A review of each of the 14 statewide ballot measues and the one Maricopa County ballot measure
· Learn more on the Election 2002 Web site

>> Michael Grant: In Arizona, people power is a lot more than a catch phrase. Arizona is one of several states where many programs and changes are driven directly by the people through the initiative and referendum process. In this special edition of "Horizon," our goal is to help you better understand the 14 statewide ballot measures you'll be voting on, in addition we'll give you information on the one Maricopa County ballot measure. Good evening, I'm Michael Grant. Welcome to "Horizon." This fall three of the measures we'll be voting on deal with Indian gaming. One of those is sponsored by the Colorado River Indian tribes located on the Arizona-California border. Paul Atkinson tells us proposition 200 is an attempt to improve the economies on reservations while giving something back to the state.

>> Paul Atkinson: The blue water resort on the Colorado River features a casino with some 450 slot machines plus keno, bingo and five poker tables. Most customers are like Margaret rush who drove here from her California home.

>> Margaret Rush: I play slots. We're retired. I think it's just -- it's great for us. I think it's great for anyone that wants to gamble.

>> Paul Atkinson: It's not gaming but agricultural that makes the most money for the four tribes that make up the Colorado River Indian tribes. The Mohaves and another tribe have farmed along the Colorado River for centuries. The other two tribes, Navajos and Hopis were relocated here in the 1940s by the U.S. Government.

>>Annette Brown: What gaming has done is allowed the tribes to diversify its economy, has been able to supplement it's already existing budget, and it's able to then enter into other enterprise areas.

>>Paul Atkinson: Gaming proceeds allowed the tribes to buy a local sand and gravel operation, open a hardware store, plus build and lease a shopping center. A new healthcare center opened last year, thanks largely to tribal money.

>> John Villa lobos: We still have a long ways to go. By no means is it -- are we finished here.

>> Paul Atkinson: John villa LOBOS oversees the preserve along the Colorado River. Proceeds from the casino were used to build a park for family get-togethers and tribal ceremonies. Casino profits are also at work helping remodel federal built housing on the reservation.

>> Annette Brown: For many years, Indian people have always been the poorest people in the country and when Indian gaming came along it enabled tries, their governments, to start building an infrastructure to bring a lot of the substandard level of living that tribal members had been in to par with the rest of the country.

>>Paul Atkinson: Over the past decade the number of Colorado River Indian tribal members living in poverty has dropped from 28% in 1989 to 22% 10 years later. A statewide average is 10%.

>> Jon Villa Lobos: We still have a long road ahead of us, and I think that's where prop 200 comes in. It has a long-term vision.

>> Paul Atkinson: Proposition 200 is sponsored by the Colorado River Indian tribes. Here's what it calls for and how it's different from current Indian gaming compacts. Proposition 200 would create a 20-year gaming compact which the tribe can automatically renew for another 20 years. Right now tribes have only a 10-year compact. Proposition 200 would allow each tribe up to three casinos. Under the current gaming compact, tribes can have from one to four based on population. Proposition 200 would allow each tribe to have from 1,000 to 1400 slot machines total. Those numbers can increase each year based on the state's population. Currently tribes can have up to 475, 900 or 1400 machines overall based on tribal population. Prop 200 also allows tribes that currently don't offer gaming the ability to exclusively transfer their allotment of slots to other tribe's casinos. After five years all tribes can transfer slot machines among casinos. Transferred slot machines don't count against a casino's designated number of machines. Currently tribes are not allowed to transfer slot machines. Prop 200 allows each casino to operate up to 20 house-banked table games, including poker, blackjack, craps, B baccarat and roulette. Right now tribes can have unlimited non-house banked poker tables but not blackjack, craps or other Las Vegas-style games.

>> Annete Brown: But the bottom line is any he can span hundred in the gaming games offered, whether it be the slots or tables s really going to be market driven. Slot machines itself, they're not cheap. They're quite expensive. So a tribe isn't going to invest in that type of equipment unless they know that they're going to get the return.

>>Paul Atkinson: Proposition 200 requires tribes to monitor, report investigate violations. Right now violations must be reported and investigated by the department of gaming. Prop 200 requires each tribe to pay 3% of net casino profit to the state. The money would be deposited with the treasurer to be spent on the following: 75% on university, community college and tribal college scholarships. 14% on statewide programs for senior healthcare. 5% to tribes for senior healthcare. 5% to tribes for education. And 1% to the state for administrative costs. Prop 200 could bring in $32 million annually, as estimated by legislative counsel. Right now tribes do not send any money to the state for such programs.

>> Annete Brown: Well, there's 18,000 college scholarships that would be created and that's not only for the universities but includes community colleges and tribal colleges. The elder healthcare, that fund is projected to increase the amount of funding for elder healthcare at least $6 million if not more.

>>Paul Atkinson: Negatives associated with proposition 200, because it expands gambling, it would increase compulsive gambling, which leads to divorce, child abuse and neglect and domestic violence. Proposition 200 reduces regulatory oversight by having tribes regulate and investigate themselves, not the department of gaming. Under prop 200, tribes do not have to disclose how much money they make, so there's no way to ensure the state is getting 3% of net profits as promised. And of the three gaming initiatives on the ballot, proposition 200 provides the least amount of money to the state.

>> Michael Grant: The following gaming proposition has been pushed by probably the most memorable character of this election season, Joe Arizona, the big difference between proposition 201 and the other gaming initiatives is that would it allow slot machines at racetracks. Paul Atkinson tells us more about proposition 201.

>> Paul Atkinson: Tom raises thoroughbreds and quarter horses in Avondale.

>> Tom Bartol: I'm a third generation boy from right here in the state. My grandparents were very interested in racing. I guess that's where it all started.

>> Paul Atkinson: He is one of an estimated 6,000 Arizonans who make a living directly or indirectly from racing at Arizona tracks. Financially the horse racing industry is doing ok. But could get a major boost if proposition 201 passes.

>> Tom Bartol: The biggest part is, there's something in there for everybody. It's not just one little select slot of people that are out there. It's going to help everybody across the board.

>>Paul Atkinson: It's also going to help the state, which BARTOL points outcomes at a time when lawmakers face a pending billion-dollar budget deficit.

>> Tom Bartol: Makes me sick to think that our state has gotten themselves in such a financial bind right now and this could be such a boon and really help pull us all out of it.

>>Paul Atkinson: Proposition 201 is sponsored by turf paradise and American greyhound racing, owner of Phoenix greyhound park. Here's what the gaming initiative calls for and how it's different from current Indian gaming compacts. Prop 201 would create a 10-year gaming compact, the same as current compacts. Proposition 201 would allow up to 10 dog and horse racetracks to offer slot machines. Smaller tracks will get 550 slots, larger tracks, 950. Currently racetracks cannot legally operate slot machines. Proposition 201 would base the number of Indian casinos and Vaught machines allowed on tribal population, meaning 13 tribes could have one casino, one tribe could have two casinos, and seven tribes could have three casinos. Under current gaming compacts, tribes can be two to four casinos. Proposition 201 would allow 13 tribes up to 600 slot machines each, one tribe would get a thousand slots, six tribes 1400 slots, and the largest, the Navajo nation, could get up to 2400 slot machines. Current gaming compacts allow as few as 475 slot machines and as many as 1400 slots per tribe. With proposition 201, the number of slot machines at tracks and casinos can increase every five years based on the percentage of increase in state population. That doesn't happen under current gaming compacts. Prop 201 also allows Indian tribes to transfer unused slot machines to casinos and exchange for minimum 50% of profits per machine. But Indian casinos cannot have more than 1,000 slot machines total, including transferred machines. Tribes cannot transfer slots to racetracks. Right now no tribe can transfer slot machines and casinos are limited to 500 slot machines.

>> Amy Rezzonico: In proposition 201 it's the exact agreement that the tribes made with the governor. We put it in ours. We feel we also made it better. We guaranteed that any transfers that go for the non-gaming tribes, they have to give 50% of their proceeds to that. The racetrack's portion of it is a small amount of slot machines in live racetracks. You have to have live racing at an Arizona racetrack in order to qualify for the slot machines.

>>Paul Atkinson: Prop 201 would give Indian tribes the exclusive right to offer table games. Rural casinos could have 50 tables of house banked blackjack and poker. Casinos near Phoenix and Tucson can have 75 tables. Right now tribes cannot offer house banked poker or blackjack but can have non-house banked poker tables. In exchange for table games tribes must pay the state 8% of gross profits from all forms of gambling. Currently tribes are not required to share revenues with the state. Racetracks would also have profits diverted. 20% of gross profits from slot machines are required to go into race purses. Racetracks would also pay a 40% state tax onslaught machine revenue. Prop 201 allocates that money for the following purposes. 25% would go to kindergarten to third grade reading programs, 21% would go to the state general fund. 20% for rural healthcare and prescriptions for Medicare patients. 12.5% to cities for police, fire and emergency services. 10% for college scholarships. 3% for tourism promotion. And 2% for compulsive gambling. A minimum of $12 million a year would go to ten different funds helping the racing industry, county fairs and the state fair. All total, prop 201 could raise up to $195 million a year from racetracks and up to $137 million a year from Indian casinos according to estimates from legislative counsel.

>> Amy Rezzonico: We're talking about a billion-dollar budget deficit. Proposition 201 is the only proposition that designates money to go to the state's general fund. How can people be against this? How can anybody be against this?

>>Paul Atkinson: Under prop 201 the department of racing would regulate slot machines at racetracks and the department of gaming regulate Indian casinos. Both tracks and casinos would be required to report daily winnings to the state and make public the amount of money earned from gaming. Right now the department of racing only oversees dog and horse racing. Racetrack profits are reported to the state and are public record. The department of gaming regulates Indian casinos who report profits to the state but those numbers are kept secret.

>> Amy Rezzonico: It's status quo with who regulates who. What we're saying is, open up your books, make your records public. Daily reporting. Monthly audits.

>>Paul Atkinson: Arguments raised against proposition 201... neighborhood groups worry that gambling within a city would increase noise and traffic and the potential for crime in surrounding neighborhoods. Gambling opponents argue prop 201 could triple the number of slot machines in Arizona, thus increasing compulsive gambling. Animal rights activists argue prop 201 would lead to more dog racing, causing more dogs to be abused, unwanted greyhounds killed and add more dogs to adoption lists that are already full. Indian tribes claim prop 201 will divert customers to racetracks and siphon revenues from tribes with high poverty rates to rich out of state racetrack owners, and some gaming experts argue Indian tribes may not have to pay 8% of profits to the state because prop 201 could violate the Indian gaming regulatory act.

>> Michael Grant: The third Indian gaming ballot measure is proposition 202, backers of prop 202 sought the approval of law make oars a gaming compact negotiated with the governor's office but to no avail. Paul Atkinson reports the 17 tribes that negotiated the compact hope voters will do what lawmakers could not get done.

>>Paul Atkinson: The Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian tribe owns and runs casino Arizona near the loop 101 and McKellips road just east of Scottsdale. The casino stands in stark contrast to conditions elsewhere on the reservation where dilapidated housing is the rule, not the exception. Janet Johnson knows firsthand the difference Indian gaming makes on the Salt River reservation. Her son Thomas and daughter TELLA attend preschool at a center built with gaming proceeds. Janet's older children went to preschool off reservation.

>>Janet Johnson: I look at the children, I bring my kids to the child care center here, and I look at the -- all the items that they have and how they're fortunate to have what they have.

>>Paul Atkinson: In fact, before gaming, the tribe had little infrastructure and offered little on reservation help in the form of community services. Now the tribe is building a new fire station and community center. It's hired more police officers and made sure they were properly paid and equipped. The tribe also opened a modern kidney dialysis center. The Salt River-Pima Maricopa tribe is one of 17 tribes that sponsor proposition 202.

>>David LaSarte: The 17 tribes who represent over 90% of the Indians in the state have spent almost three years working on this, three years of nonstop meetings, three years of consulting with the governor, legislators, community leaders. There were public hearings across the state.

>>Paul Atkinson: Current gaming compacts last ten years. Proposition 202 calls for ten-year compacts that can be automatically renewed for another ten years, and at the end an additional three years which to negotiate a new deal. Right now tribes are allocated two to four casinos depending on population size. Most don't use their full allocation. Prop 202 would reduce the number of casinos for most tribes. Four of the smallest tribes could have one casino, nine tribes could have two, one of the largest gaming tribes, Gila River, could have three casinos, and the Tohono O'odham tribe near Tucson could have four. Right now small tribes are limited to 475 slot machines total. One tribe has 700. Three others, 900. And two can have up to 1400 slot machines under current gaming compacts. Right now tribes cannot transfer slots. That would change under prop 202. Tribes keep the same number of authorized slot machines plus can transfer slots among each other. Prop 202 sets limits on the number of transferred slots a tribe can have. The column on the right shows the number of transferred slot machines casinos can use, from as little as 40 for one rural tribe to as many as 1020 for casinos near Phoenix and Tucson. The Salt River-Pima Maricopa tribe, for example, could more than double its 700 allotted slot machines by 830 more. Right now tribes can offer unlimited non-house banked poker tables where players bet among themselves but not Las Vegas style blackjack or poker. Prop 202 would allow rural tribes to offer up to 75 tables of house banked blackjack and poker per casino. Casinos near Phoenix and Tucson could have up to 100 tables. Under current gaming compacts, the number of gaming devices cannot increase. Prop 202 calls for the number of tables and slot machines to increase every five years based on the percentage of increase in state population.

>>David LaSarte: What we've been able to do in 202 is reduce the number of facilities that can be built in the state but statement allow the machines that are -- at the same time allow the machines already in the state to be used more efficiently and give benefits to the non-gaming tribes and that's something I don't think has ever been done effectively anywhere in the country. So 202 has really been able to meet the needs of the gaming tribes, non-gaming tribes and the people of the state.

>>Paul Atkinson: Current gaming compacts allow the department of gaming to monitor and investigate the operation of casino slot machines but not poker rooms. Tribes report profit to the state, but those figures aren't publicly disclosed. Prop 202 would give the gaming department authority over poker rooms, too. It also creates an online electronic monitoring system for casinos near Phoenix and Tucson. Prop 202 requires tribes to report all financial information to the state. It makes public the overall amount of money Indian casinos bring in but not what each tribe makes.

>> David LaSarte: And under 202, the 17-tribe initiative, the 17 tribes for the last three years have discussed with the department of gaming how that regulation can be tightened, how it can be improved, how it can be enhanced as we move ahead the next five, ten years.

>>Paul Atkinson: Prop 202 impose as graduated revenue sharing plan. For the first $25 million in net profit tribes share 1% of revenues. Tribes will pay 3% on profits from 25 to $75 million. 6% on profits from $75 million to $100 million. And 8% of profits over $100 million. 12% of that money will go to local governments to spend on public safety, programs to offset the negative impacts of Indian gaming and economic development. The state will see 88% of revenue sharing money. 9% would be taken off the top for regulation expenses and 2% for compulsive gambling prevention treatment and education. The rest would go into an Arizona benefits fund with money distributed as follows: 56% for educational improvement. 28% for trauma and emergency services. 8% for wildlife conservation. And 8% for tourism promotion. Legislative counsel estimates prop 202 could bring in up to $102 million a year for state and local governments.

>> David LaSarte: Because under 202 we have this long process, almost three years of working on this, we've had the opportunity to get the input of people from all over in the state. So when you look at what 202 does, they're sharing revenue with the state, it's over a billion dollars over the first 10 years.

>> Paul Atkinson: Arguments against proposition 202, gambling opponents contend it with drastically expanded gaming, gambling addiction and problems associated with it will increase. Others argue because prop 202 doesn't fully disclose to the public what Indian casinos are making, there is no way to ensure that each tribe pays its fair share of revenue funding to the state.

>> Michael: You've seen a profile of each Indian gaming measure, but they certainly can be confusing. To help you sort them out further, here is a side by side comparison of the gaming propositions.

>>Paul Atkinson: Here's how the three gaming initiatives stack up in terms of compact length, number of casinos, slot machines and table games. Proposition 200 calls for a 20-year gaming compact which tribes can automatically renew for total of 40 years. Prop 201 calls for the current length of compact, which is 10 years. Prop 202 establishes a 10-year compact that tribes can automatically renew plus has a three-year renegotiation period for a total of 23 years. When it comes to the number of casinos, prop 200 allows each tribe up to three casinos. That means a total of 45 for the 15 tribes that offer gaming. Proposition 201 allows each tribe 1 to 3 casinos based on tribal population for a total of 37 casinos. Plus a total of 10 raceINOS or tracks that offer slot machines. Proposition 202 allows tribes 1 to 4 casinos based on tribal population and location for a total of 29 casinos. Each proposition would increase the number of slot machines per tribe. Prop 200 allows each tribe 1,000 to 1400 slot machines based on tribal population for a statewide total of 21,492 slots. Prop 201 allows each tribe 600 to 2400 slot machines based on tribal population for a total of 19,600 slots. Tracks will get 550 to 950 slots per facility, adding another 6450 slots. Upping the statewide total to 26,050 slots. Prop 202 gives each tribe 475 to 1400 slot machines based on tribal population. For a total of 15,675 slots. All three initiatives allow for non-gaming tribes to transfer slot machines to gaming tribes. Prop 200 gives non-gaming tribes an exclusive five-year period before other tribes can transfer their machines. Prop 201 requires the transferring tribe to get 50% of profits per machine but limits casinos to 1,000 slot machines, including transferred machines. Prop 202 establishes a formula for the number of transferred slots a tribe can use, as little as 40 for one small rural tribe, up to 1020 for the largest urban gaming tribe. Each proposition allows tribes to offer table games. Prop 200 allows all table games, including blackjack, poker, craps, baccarat and roulette, but limits the number of tables to only 20 per casino. Prop 201 allows tribes to offer blackjack and poker. Rural Indian casinos are limited to 50 tables, urban Indian casinos 75 tables. Prop 202 allows blackjack and poker on 75 tables at rural casinos, 100 tables at urban casinos. The amount of slot machines and table games will automatically increase as the population grows. Prop 200 calls for annual increases each year, starting in 2006, by the percentage of increase in statewide population. Prop 201 has the number of slot machines at racetracks and slots and table games at casinos increased every five years based on the percentage of increase in state population starting in 2008. Prop 202 also increases the number of gaming devices on state population increases every five years. The three gaming initiatives differ on regulation. Prop 200 gives more regulatory control to tribes, allowing them to license employees who are tribal members and certify small vendors. Tasks currently done by the department of gaming. Prop 200 also makes tribal gaming offices responsible for investigating violations, not the department of gaming. Prop 201 would require the department of gaming to monitor and regulate all Indian casinos but makes the department of racing responsible for overseeing slot machines at racetracks. Prop 202 keeps current regulatory standards but requires an online monitoring system be built so the department of gaming could do real time monitoring of urban Indian casinos. By law, all tribes must report gaming proceeds to a state and a federal agency, amounts that are confidential. Each proposition differs in the amount of public disclosure of profits. Prop 200 keeps confidential each tribes' gaming profits but does make public the overall amount of money tribes give to the state in shared revenues. Prop 201 calls for full disclosure to the public of what each tribe and racetrack makes. Prop 202 calls for public disclosure of the overall amount of money made by tribes but not individual tribal profits. Propositions 200, 201, 202 differ on how much revenue they share with the state. Prop 200 requires casinos pay 3% of net profits. Prop 201 requires Indian casinos to pay 8% of gross profits and imposes a 40% tax on racetrack slot machines. Prop 202 imposes a graduated tax of 1 to 8% of net profits of Indian casinos. The three propositions also differ on where the money is spent. Prop 200 money is to be spent on college scholarships, senior healthcare programs, tribal senior healthcare and tribal education. Prop 201 revenues are divided up among the state general fund, reading programs, rural healthcare, Medicare prescriptions, college scholarships and emergency services provided by cities. Prop 202 money would be used for educational improvement, trauma and emergency services, wildlife conservation, tourism promotion and economic development. In terms of the overall fiscal impact, here's how much money each proposition could raise. Legislative counsel estimates prop 200 could bring in up to $32 million annually. Prop 201, up to $195 million a year from racetracks and $137 million a year from Indian gaming. Legislative counsel estimates prop 202 could make $102 million annually for state and local governments.

>> Michael: There are groups that are advocating a no vote on all three gaming propositions. One argument is based on moral grounds. Another argument is to defeat them all to allow the next governor to negotiate a better deal. Let's hear both those arguments.

>> Len Munsil:It should be a fundamental rule of public policy that you don't try to solve social problems in society by creating a new class of social problems. The problems of economic deprivation, poverty, addiction lack of education and healthcare in Arizona's native community are significant and must be addressed but gambling is not the solution. Increased gambling leads to increased crime statewide and increased suicide rate, increased bankruptcy, domestic violence and child abuse. We end up paying more taxes to solve the social problems that gambling creates. One final thought, gambling money corrupts everything it touches. That's why three of the last six mayors of Atlantic City and a recent governor of Louisiana have gone to jail over gambling corruption. In this election, pro gambling forces are spending ten times more than has been spent on any election in Arizona's history. If we agree now to double the amount of gambling, then understand that the gambling industry will control every election for every office in our state from here on out. Please vote no on propositions 200, 201 and 202. Las Vegas is close enough.

>> Jeff Groscot: Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity to respond on behalf of its a bad deal.com. Not only can you vote no on all three initiatives, but you should. The result of that isn't the sky going to fall as some chicken littles are running around saying, but, instead, you will allow the native Americans and the newly elected policymakers that you are electeding at this election to sit down at the table and come up with something that really is a fair deal for Arizona. First of all, it should have a time period that does not go over ten years, perhaps even five years like in Wisconsin, so we could address the problems as they arise. Secondly, it should not only be monetarily a fair deal for the state but also for the four out of five Native Americans that right now get no benefit from gaming in this state. Thirdly, there should be no expansion without a vote of the people. Not the automatic expansions that we see in these current compacts. Lastly, if you're not trying to hide anything, why aren't the books open? The fact is all three of these are a bad deal. You should vote no on all three. We can do better. We need a fair deal for Arizona.

>> Michael Grant: There are a couple of ballot measures dealing with marijuana on this year's ballot. One of them is proposition 203, which was placed on the ballot through the initiative process. Proposition 203 would do several things, but two of the major provisions would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana and have the DPS distribute the drug. Mike Sauceda tells us more about that measure.

>>Michael Sauceda: Mary Jane, weed, wacky tobacco. Some of the many slang names for cannibus, or marijuana. And since 1996, marijuana ballot measures have proliferated, not quite at the names for devil weed but certainly in great numbers. This year one of the two ballot measures dealing with marijuana is proposition 203.

>> Russell Pearce: Here we go again. This has nothing to do with any legitimate purpose. This is simply another attempt to legalize drugs, all kinds of drugs, not just marijuana.

>> Josh Burner: That's the biggest crock. I can't even imagine it. I think the Sue Indians in South Dakota call that UPA and you have to be careful on the reservation not to step in the UPA.

>>Mike Sauceda: What would proposition 203 do? It would decriminalize possession of less than 2 ounces of marijuana. Marijuana paraphernalia. Or two or fewer marijuana plants if it is for personal use. Criminal charges would be replaced by a $250 fine for a first or second offense or $750 for violations thereafter within a two-year time frame. It would require the Department of Public Safety to provide for free not more than 2 ounces of marijuana every 30 days for each person with a recommendation for medical marijuana from a doctor. A state registry would be set up for those with a doctor's recommendation of marijuana as medicine. The person with the state issued marijuana registry identification card could possess up to 2 ounces of marijuana and 2 marijuana plants and so could their caregiver. In some cases those under 18 would be allowed to have a registry card if their parents consented. Prop 203 would increase the maximum sentence by 50% for anyone convicted of a violent crime while on drugs, would abolish the minimum mandatory sentence or fine under convictions, it measure would require parole or supervision for those on prison in a drug conviction for personal possession if the clemency board determines they are not a danger to the public. Finally, it would prohibit the seizure of property unless the person was convicted of drug offensive and it was instrumental in committing the crime. Besides whether it is legalization of marijuana, one of the major bones of contention is having the DPS distribute the drug.

>> Josh Burner: Got to remember, there was compassionate marijuana on the books back in the '80s. And the DPS provided confiscated marijuana without a problem.

>> Russell Pearce: I would be embarrassed that I would be the largest drug distributor, the largest dope dealer in the State of Arizona ending my career. I absolutely agree with Dennis Garrett. This is embarrassing. It's a shame. I don't know that it's going to happen anyway, but the thought of it, because we have federal laws that would usurp that ability, but just the thought of it, and I've got to tell you, I don't know -- I may go to jail before I would do it.

>>Mike Sauceda: Pearce says it also be tough for the DPS to hand out safe marijuana.

>> Russell Pearce: These drugs are sometimes laced with other drugs in them. They are sometimes laced with poison. They are sometimes -- they are sometimes watered down with horse maneuver and other stuff. Dopers are very creative to create -- get more profit out of their illegal market.

>> Josh Burner: You can tell. You can tell if it's been whatever. And you can tell the difference just about what country it comes from, et cetera. You got to remember, this is done on the street. I have purchased up to a pound at a time, but you usually end up at South Phoenix at 2:30 in the morning with a total stranger.

>>Mike Sauceda: Burner has not in had any marijuana for several days and his nausea for radiation treatment is out of control.

>> Josh Burner: I could throw up in your lap right now but I shalln't.

>> Russell Pearce: There are drugs on the market that will do everything their argument says, legal drugs.

>>Mike Sauceda: Pearce says this is another attempt by millionaires to legalize drugs in our state.

>> Russell Pearce: This is their third attempt spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to influence the Arizona voters for -- they call it medical marijuana, a good sound bite, sounds like it may be necessary, they'll show you the clipping of somebody that's crippled or in need, glaucoma, some other eye problem the but the problem is they have drugs on the market already that take care of that.

>> Mike Sauceda: He says the placing of another measure dealing with marijuana on the ballot is all about politics.

>> Josh Burner: This war on drugs is ridiculous. This proposition 302 calling itself don't buy the lie, the battleground Arizona, well, the reason they have to call it battleground Arizona is because they're all in their holes, just like in fox holes. They're all in their holes. They're hiding out. They won't debate.

>> Michael: Another marijuana measure would give judges a stick to enforce court mandated drug treatment when medical medical marijuana was approved by voters in 1996 and then again in 1998, one of the provisions was to provide drug treatment instead of jail time for users and possessors of small amounts of marijuana. But some prosecutors and judges say there's no way to enforce that drug treatment. Proposition 302 was placed on the ballot by the legislature to provide that stick. Mike Sauceda tells us more about 302.

>>Mike Sauceda: In 1996 and in 1998 voters in Arizona approved ballot measures to allow for the use of medical marijuana. One of the provision of law prohibited jail time for possession or use of small amounts of marijuana on the first offense if no violence was involved. Drug treatment is ordered instead. But state representative Russell Pearce says people are ignoring court ordered drug treatment.

>> Russell Pearce: Talk to the county attorney's office and other prosecutors throughout this state and they have a significant problem.

>>Mike Sauceda: Former state appeals court judge and local attorney Rudolph gusher disagrees.

>> Rudolph Gerber: Well, if you look at the Arizona Supreme Court's report on proposition 300 that came out last November, roughly two-thirds of people on possession for possession and use of drugs without any other conconvictions are successful.

>>Mike Sauceda: Pearce says the law lacks teeth.

>> Russell Pearce: If they thumb their nose at the court, the law is toothless. They can simply run around, tell the judge to pack sand, not go and I suppose you could bring in through contempt or maybe -- he has no teeth in the law to do anything about his noncompliance with what the law said if you don't go to jail, you got to go to treatment.

>>Mike Sauceda: To enforce drug treatment the state legislature put on the ballot proposition 302 which would allow jail time for a first-time drug offender if they violate their probation with another drug crime or violate court ordered drug treatment. Allow probation officers or brought prosecutors to revoke probation if they fail to participate in a drug treatment program while on probation and would allow jail time, allow jail time is a convicted drug offender refuses drug treatment f a person is not eligible for probation under drug laws, it would be permitted if the person qualifies otherwise for probation. Gerber says 302 is not needed and under current law there are ways to enforce drug treatment.

>> Rudolph Gerber: That stick exists in a number of different ways in the present law. First of all, the conditions of probation can be ranch you had up dramatically -- ratcheted up dramatically, to the point of house arrest.

>> Russell Pearce: We are playing smoke and mirrors. If the treatment is what we want for small amounts, the judge had the authority to do that in the past, the law was unnecessary and a bad law. What it did was create an environment that is absolutely, and every bad guy knows it, unenforceable.

>> Rudolph Gerber: A second thing that is available that many judges don't do very often because they're not familiar with the procedures is to hold the offender in contempt of court. And the contempt of court proceeding is, in my opinion, preferable to putting people in jail or prison for violating probation. It is a faster proceeding. It can be done in a summary fashion. And the offender stays in jail for violation of the court order just long enough to indicate a desire to cooperate.

>> Michael Grant: Our next proposition deals with a different kind of smoking material, proposition 303 would increase the price of a pack of smokes by 60 cents. Taxes on other tobacco products would also go up to pay for health insurance for the poor, trauma services and other health related programs.

>>Paul Atkinson: In 1994, Arizona voters approved proposition 200, the tobacco tax and healthcare act, increasing the tax on cigarettes by 40 cents per pack. Revenues general raid from the tax were dedicated to three purposes: healthcare for the needy, tobacco use prevention and research of tobacco related diseases.

>> Cathy Bischoff: According to the centers for disease control latest statistics, it costs us about a billion dollars in direct healthcare every year due to tobacco related diseases. About a quarter of the deaths in Arizona are due to tobacco related diseases. We lose about 600 women a year due to breast cancer. We lose 1100 women a year due to lung cancer. And 90% of all lung cancers are due to smoking. So this addiction takes an enormous toll on the State of Arizona.

>> Paul Atkinson: This year, if proposition 303 is approved, the revenues collected from this additional tax would be deposited into a new tobacco products tax fund that would be administered by AHCCCS, the Arizona healthcare cost containment system. Of the monies collected, 42% would go to programs and services to expand spanned the population of individuals eligible for coverage under AHCCCS. 27% to medical services for low income and indigent persons. 20% for the reimbursement of uncompensated care, primary care and trauma center readiness costs. 5% to research for preventing and treating tobacco related diseases and addictions as well as other diseases. 4% to the healthcare adjustment account, which would compensate other tobacco tax programs for decreases in tobacco tax revenues. And 2% for prevention and early detection of the four leading disease related causes of death in Arizona. Proposition 303 would also repeal and reenact with few exceptions the current statute that establishes the tobacco tax and healthcare fund health education account. This would prevent future legislatures from substantially changing the account. Additionally, prop 303 would require the legislature to establish by January 2004 a tobacco revenue use spending and tracking commission.

>> Michael Grant: You can't win unless you vote. That could be the motto for proposition 301, which would extend the Arizona lottery by another 10 years. Mike Sauceda tells us more about the proposition.

>> Mike Sauceda: Ever since 1980 you've been able to participate in state sponsored legal gambling. That's when Arizona voters approved the Arizona lottery. The lottery was put on the ballot by lawmakers again in 1998 and was approved by 67% of those voting. But that only extended the lottery until July 1st 2003. So once again the state loy will be on the ballot again this year as the state voters continue vote whether to continue the lottery. Since the lottery started it has raid $1.5 billion. That money has provided nearly $600 million to the general fund, over $400 million to local transportation, over $200 million has gone to the heritage fund to preserve historic buildings in Arizona, also getting a chunk of lottery funds, counties, economic development, mass transit and court advocates for children. Lottery funds have helped with wildlife conservation, parks and recreation preserving open space, culture and arts, outdoor education. The average lottery player according to a poll conducted by west group research is 47 years old, makes just under $45,000 annually, 64% of players had some college, by a slim majority most players are men.

>> Michael: Here to tell us more about proposition 301 is Ira Rubens, chair of the preserve the lottery committee, also here is Jeff Groscost, the former speaker of the house and a lottery opponent. Gentlemen, good to see both of you.

>> Ira Rubins: pleasure to be here.

>> Michael: Why yes on proposition 301?

>> Ira Rubins: Proposition 301 asks the voters to continue the Arizona lottery for ten years. The lottery has been in existence for 20 years, and since 1980, when it was originally passed by the voters, the lottery has raised over $1.5 billion to support state projects and programs, including, as was just mentioned the heritage fund, local transportation programs, the county assistance programs, and the court appointed special advocate program, casa. Casa, as you know, receives its only funding from lottery monies. Additionally, $580 million over the last 20 years has gone to the state's general fund. If the lottery expires, the state will lose about $79 million just in this past year given the figures of revenues. The lottery has been good for the state. In the last five to ten years, it's been run well, received well and shown benefit both to the state and to the citizens. So continue it.

>> Michael: You can't win if you don't play. Why don't you want to play?

>> Jeff Groscost: I think that a better statement may be you can't lose if you don't play. This is -- this is a lottery that has been fraught with problems for its entire lifetime. Things such as not programming in a number 9 a couple years ago, and after two years of people not winning because they chose number 9, we found that that's because of a programming error. A bingo game that was supposed to be the saviour of the lottery. They spent $2 million on, rolled out, pulled back in after two months. Wasting the money of all the printing. Literally trying to put slot machines in Circle Ks under the banner of video lottery terminals. And ultimately, since the third year it was in operation, it has been precipitously losing revenue every single year, even if you conceded that it was a good thing that we went out and actively solicited our citizens to learn how to gamble, the point is, out of $272 million that was brought in, the general fund got about $23 million, the heritage fund, another $16 and some change this year, you know, $40 million on -- $40 million on $272 is less than 15%. That's a lousy return for what we're having to put up with in order to receive those revenues.

>> Michael Grant: Proposition 103 was placed on the ballot by lawmakers to prohibit bail for some child molesters. It is also designed to protect the victims of molesters. Here is more about proposition 103. right now anyone arrested for a crime is eligible to post bail, except under the following circumstances. If there is enough evidence to show a person committed the crime, or the presumption that the person committed the crime is great, plus the charge involved must be murder, or the person is a danger to the public, or committed a crime while out on bail for a felony. Proposition 103 would amend the state's constitution by also prohibiting bail for the following crimes. Sexual assault, sexual conduct with a minor under 15, and molestation of a child under 15. Proposition 103 allows bail to be granted if it can be assured the accused will show up for trial, if release conditioned protect against the intimidation of witnesses, and protect the safety of the victim and community. Just four years ago state lawmakers got a hefty raise, and this year a commission which issues recommendations on state elected officials' salaries has suggested another pay increase for lawmakers. Mike Sauceda tells us more about proposition 304.

>>: Mike Sauceda: When Arizona was born, state lawmakers were paid by the day, $7 a day. That increased over the years but then in 1958 state voters approved an amendment that allowed lawmakers to be paid an annual salary for the part-time job which at that time was $1800. Over time lawmakers salaries grew, and four years ago, legislators got a raise from $15,000 a year to $24,000 in a measure approved by voters. This year voters are once again being asked to up the ANTE. The commission on salaries recommended a raise to be put on the ballot this year asking voters to approve a 50% increase in state lawmakers' pay taking the salary from 24,000 to 36,000 annually. The commission was formed in 1970 by ballot mesh do you remember recommend legislative salaries. It is made up that five members, two appointed by the governor, one by the Senate president, one you a point by the speaker of the house one appointed by the chief justice of the state Supreme Court. In making the recommendation the commission did acknowledge the current budget crisis the state faces but made the recommendations after finding state lawmakers are woefully behind in compensation compared to what other states pay their lawmakers. The commission found that Arizona lawmakers ranked 21st in pay nationwide.

>> Michael Grant: In proposition 101, state lawmakers are hoping the fifth time is the charm. Four times over the past 12 years state lawmakers have put on the ballot a mesh do you remember allow the state to trade parcels from its land trust, and four times voters have said no to that measure. But lawmakers have not given up. On November 5 voters will once again decide if Arizona can make trades with its land trust.

>> Russell Bowers: What 101 is trying to do is to allow the State Land Department to exchange lands with other government entities, and the state land being exchanged can only go for preservation. What that allows us to do is then to free up other properties which can -- the monies or benefits of which land can go into the trust.

>> Sandy Bahr: We're opposed to proposition 101 because it would change the Arizona constitution to allow the state to engage in exchanges of state trust lands, and we don't think the provision provides enough accountability relative to the public, and we're very concerned it will result in bad land deals overall.

>>Merry Lucero: When the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico enabling act in 1910, millions of acres designated as state trust lands were given to Arizona. The purpose of this Grant was to produce revenue for public institutions, such as schools, universities and prisons by leasing or selling the land and its products at auction to the highest bidder. Decades later, the act was broadened to give Arizona greater flexibility in the management of state trust lands by allowing exchanges for other public or private lands. While Arizona enacted statutes to provide for such exchanges, the state constitution was never amended to that end. Over the years, state trust land exchanges took place periodically until 1990 when the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that exchanges must cease in the absence of a state constitutional amendment. If approved by voters, proposition 101 would amend the Arizona constitution to allow the exchange of state trust land for other public land if the exchange is in the best interest of the state land trust and the exchange conserves open space on the trust land offered by the state. For the exchange to take place, there must be public hearings. The appraised value of the land the state receives must be at least equal to the appraised value of the land the state exchanges and the trust income must not be reduced. There must also be an analysis of local land uses and land use plans. The financial impact on the counties, municipalities and school districts in which the trust lands are located, and the physical, economic and natural resource impacts of the exchange on the surrounding community. Supporters maintain that prop 101 would be a valuable tool for preserving critical open space in populated areas as well as releasing trust property that is surrounded by federal land.

>> Russell Bowers: So this allows us an opportunity to save sections of land like what we have here in a highly urbanizing area and exchange them perhaps for checkerboarded federal lands.

>>Merry Lucero: Opponents of 101 counter that the same end can be accomplished in a simpler fashion.

>> Sandy Bahr: Based on research and based on the history of land exchanges, for the public generally speaking, it's better if there is an outright sale of lands and an outright purchase of land.

>> Michael: Our next ballot measure is closely related to proposition 101. It would direct certain funds from trust land earnings to classroom site funds. Here's more about proposition 300.

>>Michael Sauceda: The money earned by state trust land is deposited into two counts, the permanent fund and the exspendable fund. The expendable fund is made up of interest from the permanent fund and earnings from land leases, money from the expendable fund that exceeds the earnings of the 2000-2001 fiscal year expendable fund are put into the classroom site fund. That was created by voters two years ago to reduce class sizes, reduce drop-out rate and increase teacher pay. Proposition 300 would reaffirm the requirement to place earnings from the expendable fund above 2000-2001 levels into the classroom site fund. It makes other changes to the expendable fund, require a payment of the debt service on borrowing for school construction and specifies that additional expendable fund earnings are not to be used by lawmakers to balance the budget.

>> Michael Grant: Proposition 104 also deals with state land trust earnings. It would exempt from spending limits to which schools must adhere money earned for a education from public lands. Here is more on that measure.

>> Michael Sauceda : The Arizona constitution sets a spending limit on schools, however, some funds are exempted from that spending limit. Two years ago voters approved a .6% increase in the sales tax to provide more money for education. Proposition 104 would exempt those funds from the spending limits.

>> Michael: Proposition 102 also deals with a land issue. It's a clarification of who qualifies for a senior citizen property tax freeze.

>>Michael Suaceda: Proposition 102 clarifies the qualification criteria for property tax freeze for senior citizens that voters approved two years ago when the tax freeze was approved it set eligibility income limits based on Social Security benefits. For an individual over 65 to qualify for the property tax freeze, he or she could not make more than 400% of Social Security benefits, for multiple owners of a property, their income could not exceed 500% of Social Security benefits about that but under the measure approved two years ago, it was unclear whether the qualification level for multiple owners should be 500% of the Social Security benefits for a single person or 500% of the rate for two or more people. Proposition 102 would clarify the qualification level for two or more property owners to 500% of the Social Security benefits for individuals.

>> Michael Grant: The final statewide ballot measure we'll look at tonight will be the first proposition you will see on your ballot. It would change the amount cities can borrow to help fix and construct streets. Here is more on proposition 100 about that.

>>> Michael Sauceda: Proposition 100 would allow cities and towns to incur debt of up to 20% of taxable property for road construction and repair if approved by voters. It would also remove the requirement that those voting in an election be restricted to property owners, and specify that the last property assessment be the one used for determining debt levels.

>> Michael Grant: Our final proposition is strictly for Maricopa County voters. It would extend by 20 years a 1/5th of a cent sales tax passed by voters in 1998 to build county jails. The extra money would pay for the operation of the jails. Let's take a closer look at why the county is saying that money is needed.

>>Merry Lucero: Maricopa County jails are overcrowded and understaffed. There are nearly 8200 inmates in a jail system meant to hold 5600 and one detention officer for every nine inmates.

>>Allen Cradic: With almost five times the number of designated inmates, certain aspects of the job have to be circumvented, shortcut. Strip searches aren't being done, pat searches aren't being done like they need to be done. Everything has to be rushed.

>>Merry Lucero: Two new state of the art county adult jail facilities are under construction, two juvenile facilities are also being built and a central services complex, all on schedule and within the budget, according to Maricopa County officials.

>> Joe Arpaio: I can only do so much as a present sheriff, but as time goes on, we're going to have more population, we have 3.2 million people, you know it's going to grow and as it grows you get some bad guys.

>>Merry Lucero: In 1998, voters recognized and that they pass add 1/5th of a cent sales tax to pay for the jails currently under construction that the. The tax was approved for nine years or until it generates $900 million. So far it has raised more than 300 million.

>> David Smith: The public very intelligently voted for this thing in 1998, and we have delivered on the construction side in accordance with that particular vote. Now, the legislature told us to say, see if the economy won't grow fast enough so that you don't need to extend this beyond $900 million or nine years. We tried. We did our level best. But everyone knows what's happened to the economy. Everyone knows what's happened to the state budget.

>> Janie Thom: When we're talking about using sales tax to fund something that has constant and increasing costs, this is wrong, because we never know how much money is going to be coming into the system.

>>Merry Lucero: County officials say they won't have enough money to staff and operate the new jails. So the board of supervisors place add measure on the November 5th ballot to extend the 1/5th of a cent sales tax for 20 years. It's estimated that the annual taxes generated from prop 411 will be approximately $132 million. 5% for construction and renovation, 21% for juvenile operations. 74% for adult operations. Opponents of the extension say it would essentially be a permanent tax, saying voters would not have originally voted for the mesh fur they had known the county needed more tax money to operate the jails.

>> Michael Grant: If you'd like to learn still more about the ballot measures, please visit our website at www.kaet.asu.edu. When you get there, click on election 2002, and you can learn everything you'll need to know to vote on the ballot measures. Thank you very much for joining us for this special edition of "Horizon." Don't forget to vote. I'm Michael Grant. Have a good one. Good night.