Arizona Cash Advance Reform, Proposition 200 (2008)

Arizona Cash Advance Reform, Proposition 200 (2008)


  • 1 Election results
  • 2 Text for the effort
  • 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 road to the ballot
    • 8.1 Ballot name lawsuit
  • 9 See also
  • 10 exterior links
    • 10.1 Basic information
    • 10.2 Supporters
    • 10.3 Opponents
  • 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 cash advance Reform Act, had been in the November ballot in Arizona being a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment. It had been beaten.

The payday-loan effort had been mainly supported by the payday-loan business within the state, and ended up being less strict compared to the avoid payday advances 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 That measure had been withdrawn at the beginning of June if not sufficient signatures had been being gathered to qualify it for the ballot. 1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 40.4per cent

Text associated with effort

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

Arizonans use payday lending services each day to generally meet unexpected costs and emergencies that are financial. The payday financing industry is defined become eradicated in addition to Arizona Legislature will not enact reforms to profit borrowers while preserving this essential option that is financial. This measure provides dramatic reform that is pro-consumer payday lending and preserve customer option. It provides a significant price cut, removes rolling-over major to extend that loan, creates a payment plan free of charge to clients that can not satisfy their responsibilities, and inhibits a debtor’s power to get one or more loan at the same 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 having a check postdated to the debtor’s next payday. The attention price when you look at the lack of legislation had typically worked off to on average $15 per $100 lent on a two-week loan. The interest that is high had been exactly 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, as well as Prop 200, Ohioans voted on payday financing in Ohio Issue 5. In Ohio and Arizona together, the true amount of payday-lending branches outnumbers the Starbucks and McDonald’s outlets combined. 5

Information on the proposition

Under this proposition:

  • The payday-loan industry, which faces reduction this season when an enabling law expires, could have its directly to exercise into the state stretched indefinitely.
  • Costs payday loan providers are permitted to fee would drop from $17.65 to $15 for a $100, two-week loan.
  • Loan providers wouldn’t be allowed to roll throughout the principal into extensive loans and will have to provide customers repayment plans.


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

Based on the internet site of some other support that is affiliated, “Reform Arizona pay day loans,” 6 , tens and thousands of Arizonans usage pay day loans responsibly to pay for unanticipated day-to-day costs. But, the website warns, the avoid pay day loans Initiative would eliminate this easy option that is financial Arizona. Supporters of the measure argued that eliminating payday advances completely would harm numerous families economically, through higher banking fees, charge card belated costs, and utility 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 said the presssing issue boils down to customer option.

“Payday-lending stores occur because clients when you look at the world that is real logical choices about borrowing money short-term, plus in numerous instances, payday advances would be the most inexpensive selection for somebody that has a crisis or unexpected cost they should cope with,” Barnes stated.

Supporters added that closing all pay day loans in Arizona would also expel a lot 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 costs
  • Establishes a repayment plan that is flexible
  • Needs internet loan providers to be certified within the state
  • Enacts tough new laws to split straight straight straight 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 will have been better if rejected that possibility. A research by two economists using the ny Federal Reserve Bank unearthed that after Georgia and new york abolished payday lending, bounced checks and Chapter 7 bankruptcies increased.” 7

Donors to Proposition 200

Because of the end of July, supporters of Prop. 200 had offered about $8.7 million to a campaign committee arranged to advertise the effort. The Arizona Republic stated that “nearly every cent. is donated by – guess who? – a trade team representing dollar loan center phone number lenders that are payday the Arizona Community Financial solutions Association.” 8


The no that is website 200 : It is No Reform after all was created in opposition for this effort.

Rep. Marian McClure (R-Tucson), chairwoman for the Stop Payday Loans Initiative campaign, stated that cash advance reform, like this cash advance Reform Act]], is nothing but “window dressing.” 9

The Democratic Party of Arizona endorsed the avoid pay day loans effort and argued that pay day loans are “by definition predatory and benefit 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 doesn’t lengthen the minimum loan term of five times, hence maintaining pay day loan items at 391% APR or worse
  • Electronic usage of debtor accounts provides payday lenders debit that is unfettered to consumer bank records and facilitates overcharging
  • The payment plan supply limits customers’ straight to request a payment want to as soon as per 12 months.
  • “The argument that shutting pay day loan shops could be a blow towards the economy is similarly spurious. It may assist the economy on the street, but that doesn’t mean it would make our lives any better if we legalized the sale of heroin and let merchants hawk it. A market that thrives on keeping customers bad will not assist the economy.” 10


Pay check loan providers would not disappear completely therefore effortlessly after the measure’s defeat, because they attempted to persuade lawmakers to allow them stay static in company throughout the autumn of 2009. Based on reports, the industry hired former state Attorney General give Woods to represent them inside their efforts. Based on Woods, after learning a proposition because of the industry, he was convinced there was clearly spot when you look at 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 title lawsuit

Arizonans for Responsible Lending filed case within the ballot language. In accordance with the lawsuit, voters might unknowingly accept a limit of 400 per cent rates of interest for payday advances in the event that Secretary of State would not explain the language that is descriptive of 200 from 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 regarding the ballot measure drafted by Secretary Brewer had been theoretically accurate, and therefore with just 50 terms to spell out complex problems, alternatives need to be made.