Arizona Cash Advance Reform, Proposition 200 (2008)

Arizona Cash Advance Reform, Proposition 200 (2008)


  • 1 Election results
  • 2 Text associated with initiative
  • 3 Back Ground
  • 4 information on the proposition
  • 5 Supporters
    • 5.1 arguments that are supporting
    • 5.2 Donors to Proposition 200
  • 6 Opposition
    • 6.1 Opposing arguments
  • 7 Aftermath
  • 8 way to the ballot
    • 8.1 Ballot name lawsuit
  • 9 See also
  • 10 exterior links
  • 11 Footnotes
Arizona Constitution
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 6.1 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30

Arizona Proposition 200, also called the pay day loan Reform Act, ended up being regarding the November ballot in Arizona as a citizen-initiated amendment that is constitutional. It had been beaten.

The payday-loan effort ended up being mainly supported by the payday-loan company within the continuing state, and had been less strict compared to the avoid Payday Loans Initiative, sponsored by Rep. Marion McClure, D-30, and Sen. Debbie McCune Davis, D-14. That measure had been withdrawn at the beginning of June if not sufficient signatures were being gathered to qualify it for the ballot. 1

Election results

Arizona Payday Loan Reform
Result Votes Percentage
d No 1,271,717 59.6per cent
Yes 860,607 40.4%

Text associated with the effort

The description that is 100-word with all the Arizona Secretary of State’s workplace because of this initiated state statute checks out:

Arizonans use payday lending services each day to generally meet unexpected costs and monetary emergencies. The payday financing industry is scheduled become eradicated additionally the Arizona Legislature will not enact reforms to profit borrowers while preserving this crucial economic choice. This measure brings dramatic pro-consumer reform to payday lending and protect customer option. It offers a significant price cut, removes rolling-over major to extend financing, produces a payment plan free of charge to clients that can not fulfill their responsibilities, and inhibits a debtor’s power to get one or more loan at any given time. 3 4


The lending that is payday ended up being an $85 billion industry providing you with short-term loans, that have been frequently guaranteed by having a check postdated into the debtor’s next payday. The attention rate into the lack of legislation had typically worked away to on average $15 per $100 lent for a two-week loan. The interest that is high were just just what had resulted in legislative tries to manage the industry. The training had been unlawful in fifteen states in the right period of Proposition 200. In 2008, along with Prop 200, Ohioans voted on payday lending in Ohio Issue 5. In Ohio and Arizona together, the wide range of payday-lending branches outnumbers the Starbucks and McDonald’s outlets combined. 5

Information on the proposition

Under this proposal:

  • The payday-loan industry, which faces eradication this year when an enabling law expires, will have its directly to exercise into the continuing state stretched indefinitely.
  • Charges payday loan providers are permitted to fee would drop from $17.65 to $15 on a $100, two-week loan.
  • Loan providers wouldn’t be allowed to move on the principal into extensive loans and would need to provide customers payment plans.


„Arizonans for Financial Reform“ had been supporting this initiative. It absolutely was filed in reaction into the avoid payday advances Initiative, which will eradicate all loans that are payday.

In line with the web site of some other support that is affiliated, „Reform Arizona pay day loans,“ 6 , several thousand Arizonans usage payday advances responsibly to pay for unforeseen day-to-day costs. But, the website warns, the avoid payday advances Initiative would eliminate this easy monetary choice in Arizona. Supporters with this measure argued that eliminating loans that are payday would hurt many families economically, through higher banking fees, charge card belated fees, and energy reconnect charges. 6

Stan Barnes, a lobbyist and consultant to Americans for Financial Reform, a committee funded because of the payday-loan industry, supported this measure and stated the issue boils down to customer option.

„Payday-lending shops exist because clients when you look at the real life make logical choices about borrowing cash short-term, as well as in numerous circumstances, pay day loans are the most inexpensive selection for some people that have an urgent situation or unforeseen expense they need to cope with,“ Barnes stated.

Supporters included that ending all loans that are payday Arizona would also eradicate significantly more than 2,500 Arizona jobs. 6

Supporting arguments

Main arguments submit meant for Proposition 200 included:

  • Prop. 200 would mandate a significant cut in loan charges
  • Establishes a versatile payment plan
  • Needs internet lenders to be certified into the state
  • Enacts tough regulations that are new split down on unscrupulous operators
  • „About 5 per cent of People in america took down an online payday loan. There is scant proof that their great deal might have been better if rejected that possibility. A report by two economists because of the ny Federal Reserve Bank unearthed that after Georgia and new york abolished lending that is payday bounced checks and Chapter 7 bankruptcies increased.“ 7

Donors to Proposition 200

By the end of July, supporters of Prop. 200 had provided about $8.7 million up to a campaign committee arranged to market the effort. The Arizona Republic stated that „nearly every cent. happens to be donated by – guess who? – a trade team representing lenders that are payday the Arizona Community Financial Services Association.“ 8


The website No On 200 : It is No Reform after all ended up being created in opposition for this effort.

Rep. Marian McClure (R-Tucson), chairwoman associated with the avoid Payday Loans Initiative campaign, stated that cash advance reform, similar to this pay day loan Reform Act]], is absolutely nothing more than „window dressing.“ 9

The Democratic Party of Arizona endorsed the avoid pay day loans effort and argued that payday advances are „by definition predatory and make money from economically susceptible Arizona families by trapping them in unending rounds of financial obligation.“

Opposing arguments

Main arguments proposed versus Proposition 200 included:

  • Prop. 200 does not lengthen the minimum loan term of five times, hence maintaining loan that is payday at 391% APR or worse
  • Electronic use of debtor accounts provides payday lenders debit that is unfettered to consumer bank records and facilitates overcharging
  • The payment plan supply limits consumers‘ straight to request a payment want to as soon as per 12 months.
  • „The argument that shutting pay day loan shops will be a blow to your economy is similarly spurious. It may assist the economy whenever we legalized the purchase of heroin and allow merchants hawk it from the road, but it doesn’t suggest it might make our life any benefit. A business that thrives on keeping consumers bad will not assist the economy.“ 10


Pay check loan providers failed to disappear so effortlessly after the measure’s beat, them stay in business during the fall of 2009 as they tried to convince lawmakers to let. Based on reports, the industry hired state that is former General Grant Woods to express them within their efforts. Based on Woods, after learning a proposition because of the industry, he was convinced there clearly was destination into the state of payday loan providers. 11

Road to the ballot

On 23, its supporters turned in more than 265,000 signatures to the Arizona Secretary of State june.

Ballot name lawsuit

Arizonans for Responsible Lending filed case throughout the ballot language. Based on the lawsuit, voters might unwittingly accept a limit of 400 per cent rates of interest for payday advances in the event that Secretary of State failed to simplify the descriptive language of Proposition 200 regarding the November’s ballot.

Superior Court Judge Sam Myers ruled Aug. 27, 2008, that Secretary of State Janice Brewer didn’t have to explain the language. Judge Myers stated that the description for the ballot measure drafted by Secretary Brewer ended up being theoretically accurate, and that with just 50 terms to spell out issues that are complex alternatives need to be made.



Detaillierte Beschreibung

Transfer und Erfahrung


Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.