Arizona Cash Advance Reform, Proposition 200 (2008)

Arizona Cash Advance Reform, Proposition 200 (2008)


  • ۱ Election results
  • ۲ Text associated with effort
  • ۳ Back Ground
  • ۴ information on the proposition
  • ۵ Supporters
    • ۵٫۱ arguments that are supporting
    • ۵٫۲ Donors to Proposition 200
  • ۶ Opposition
    • ۶٫۱ Opposing arguments
  • ۷ Aftermath
  • ۸ way to the ballot
    • ۸٫۱ Ballot name lawsuit
  • ۹ See also
  • ۱۰ links that are external
    • ۱۰٫۱ fundamental information
    • ۱۰٫۲ Supporters
    • ۱۰٫۳ Opponents
  • ۱۱ Footnotes
Arizona Constitution
۱ • ۲ • ۳ • ۴ • ۵ • ۶ • ۶٫۱ • ۷ • ۸ • ۹ • ۱۰ • ۱۱ • ۱۲ • ۱۳ • ۱۴ • ۱۵ • ۱۶ • ۱۷ • ۱۸ • ۱۹ • ۲۰ • ۲۱ • ۲۲ • ۲۵ • ۲۶ • ۲۷ • ۲۸ • ۲۹ • ۳۰

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

The payday-loan effort ended up being mainly backed by the payday-loan company within the state, and ended up being less strict compared to the Stop payday advances Initiative, sponsored by Rep. Marion McClure, D-30, and Sen. Debbie McCune Davis, D-14. That measure ended up being withdrawn during the early June if not sufficient signatures had been being gathered to qualify it for the ballot. 1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 ۱,۲۷۱,۷۱۷ ۵۹٫۶%
Yes ۸۶۰,۶۰۷ ۴۰٫۴percent

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 expenses and emergencies that are financial. The payday lending industry is defined become eradicated and also the Arizona Legislature refuses to enact reforms to benefit borrowers while preserving this crucial financial choice. This measure provides dramatic pro-consumer reform to payday lending and protect customer option. It provides a significant price cut, eliminates rolling-over major to extend that loan, produces a payment plan free of charge to clients that can not satisfy their responsibilities, and inhibits a debtor’s capacity to obtain one or more loan at any given time. 3 4


The lending that is payday had been an $85 billion industry that delivers short-term loans, that have been frequently guaranteed with a check postdated to your debtor’s next payday. The attention price into the lack of legislation had typically worked off to on average $15 per $100 lent for a loan that is two-week. The interest that is high were exactly just what had resulted in legislative tries to manage the industry. The training had been unlawful in fifteen states in the 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 quantity 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 eradication this year when an enabling law expires, could have its directly to exercise into the state stretched indefinitely.
  • Costs payday loan providers are permitted to cost would drop from $17.65 to $15 for 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 effort. It absolutely was filed in response towards the avoid payday advances Initiative, which will eradicate all payday advances.

In line with the 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 unforeseen day-to-day costs. But, the website warns, the avoid pay day loans Initiative would remove this easy option that is financial Arizona. Supporters with this measure argued that eliminating payday advances completely would harm numerous families economically, through higher banking fees, charge card belated costs, 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 problem boils down to customer option.

“Payday-lending shops occur because clients into the real life make logical decisions about borrowing cash short-term, as well as in numerous circumstances, payday advances will be the most inexpensive choice for some people that have an urgent situation or unforeseen cost they should cope with,” Barnes stated.

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

Supporting arguments

Main arguments submit to get Proposition 200 included:

  • Prop. 200 would mandate a substantial cut in loan costs
  • Establishes a versatile payment plan
  • Needs lenders that are internet be certified into the state
  • Enacts tough regulations that are new break straight straight down on unscrupulous operators
  • “About 5 per cent of People in the us took down an online payday loan. There is scant proof that their great deal could have been better if rejected that possibility. A report by two economists utilizing 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 to a campaign committee arranged to advertise the effort. The Arizona Republic stated that “nearly every cent. was donated by – guess who? – a trade team representing payday lenders: the Arizona Community Financial solutions 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 for the Stop Payday Loans Initiative campaign, stated that cash advance reform, similar to this cash advance Reform Act]], is nothing but “window dressing.” 9

The Democratic Party of Arizona endorsed the avoid payday advances initiative and argued that payday advances are “by definition predatory and benefit from financially susceptible Arizona families by trapping them in unending rounds of financial obligation.”

Opposing arguments

Main arguments proposed in opposition to Proposition 200 included:

  • Prop. 200 does not lengthen the minimum loan term of five times, hence maintaining pay day loan items at 391% APR or worse
  • Electronic usage of debtor accounts offers payday lenders debit that is unfettered to consumer bank reports and facilitates overcharging
  • The payment plan supply limits customers’ directly to request a payment want to when per 12 months.
  • “The argument that shutting pay day loan shops could be a blow into the economy is similarly spurious. It may assist the economy whenever we legalized the purchase of heroin and allow merchants hawk it regarding the road, but it doesn’t check into cash loans loan suggest it can make our life any benefit. A business that thrives on keeping customers bad will not assist the economy.” 10


Pay check loan providers didn’t disappear therefore 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 give Woods to express them within their efforts. Based on Woods, after learning a proposition by the industry, he was convinced there is an accepted spot into the state of payday loan providers. 11

Road to the ballot

On June 23, its supporters switched much more than 265,000 signatures towards the Arizona Secretary of State.

Ballot name lawsuit

Arizonans for Responsible Lending filed case on the ballot language. In line with the lawsuit, voters might unwittingly accept a limit of 400 % rates of interest for pay day loans in the event that Secretary of State would not explain the descriptive language of Proposition 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 for the ballot measure drafted by Secretary Brewer had been theoretically accurate, and therefore with just 50 terms to describe complex dilemmas, alternatives need to be made.

You may also like...

Popular Posts