Home » Arizona Cash Advance Reform, Proposition 200 (2008)

Arizona Cash Advance Reform, Proposition 200 (2008)

Arizona Cash Advance Reform, Proposition 200 (2008)


  • 1 Election results
  • 2 Text of this effort
  • 3 History
  • 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 links that are external
    • 10.1 fundamental 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 pay day loan Reform Act, had been from the November ballot in Arizona as a citizen-initiated amendment that is constitutional. It absolutely was beaten.

The payday-loan effort ended up being mainly supported by the payday-loan business into the continuing state, and had been 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 That measure ended up being withdrawn at the beginning of June if not signatures that are enough being gathered to qualify it for the ballot. 1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 40.4percent

Text associated with the initiative

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

Arizonans use payday lending services every day to meet up unexpected costs and emergencies that are financial. The payday financing industry is placed become eliminated plus the Arizona Legislature does not want to enact reforms to profit borrowers while preserving this essential option that is financial. This measure brings dramatic pro-consumer reform to payday lending and preserve consumer 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 fulfill their responsibilities, and inhibits a debtor’s capacity 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 secured by having a check postdated into 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 high rates of interest had been 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 true 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 removal this season when an enabling law expires, will have its straight to exercise into the state stretched indefinitely.
  • Costs 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 will have to provide customers repayment plans.


“Arizonans for Financial Reform” had been supporting this effort. It absolutely was filed in reaction to your Stop payday advances Initiative, which may expel all loans that are payday.

Based on the internet site of some other support that is affiliated, “Reform Arizona payday advances,” 6 , lots and lots of Arizonans usage pay day loans responsibly to pay for unanticipated day-to-day costs. But, your website warns, the avoid pay day loans Initiative would eliminate this easy economic choice in Arizona. Supporters with this measure argued that eliminating loans that are payday would harm many families economically, through higher banking fees, charge card belated charges, 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 customers into the world that is real logical choices about borrowing cash short-term, as well as in numerous circumstances, payday advances will be the most inexpensive selection for somebody that has an urgent situation or unexpected cost they need to cope with,” Barnes stated.

Supporters included 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 to get Proposition 200 included:

  • Prop. 200 would mandate a significant cut in loan charges
  • Establishes a versatile payment plan
  • Needs lenders that are internet be certified into the state
  • Enacts tough regulations that are new split down on unscrupulous operators
  • “About 5 % of People in america took out an online payday loan. There is scant evidence that their great deal will have been better if denied that possibility. A research by two economists aided by 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

Because of the end of July, supporters of Prop. 200 had offered about $8.7 million to a campaign committee arranged to market the effort. The Arizona Republic reported that “nearly every cent. happens to be donated by – guess who? – a fig loans customer service trade team representing lenders that are payday the Arizona Community Financial solutions Association.” 8


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

Rep. Marian McClure (R-Tucson), chairwoman associated with avoid 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 payday advances effort and argued that pay day loans 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 doesn’t lengthen the minimum loan term of five times, hence maintaining cash advance items at 391% APR or worse
  • Electronic usage of debtor accounts offers payday lenders unfettered debit access to client bank reports and facilitates overcharging
  • The payment plan supply limits consumers’ directly to request a payment want to as soon as per 12 months.
  • “The argument that shutting loan that is payday will 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 business that thrives on keeping customers bad will not assist the economy.” 10


Pay check loan providers would not disappear completely therefore easily after the measure’s beat, them stay in business during the fall of 2009 as they tried to convince lawmakers to let. In accordance with 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 was clearly an accepted 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 on the ballot language. In line with the lawsuit, voters might unknowingly accept a limit of 400 per cent rates of interest for pay day loans in the event that Secretary of State would not make clear 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 simplify the language. Judge Myers stated that the description of this ballot measure drafted by Secretary Brewer ended up being theoretically accurate, and therefore with only 50 terms to describe complex problems, alternatives need to be made.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *