Arizona Cash Advance Reform, Proposition 200 (2008)

Arizona Cash Advance Reform, Proposition 200 (2008)


  • 1 Election results
  • 2 Text for the 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 arguments that are opposing
  • 7 Aftermath
  • 8 road to the ballot
    • 8.1 Ballot title 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 referred to as the pay day loan Reform Act, ended up being in the November ballot in Arizona as a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment. It absolutely was 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 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 That measure ended up being withdrawn during the early June if not signatures that are enough being gathered to qualify it for the ballot. 1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 40.4per 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 everyday to generally meet unexpected costs and monetary emergencies. The payday financing industry is defined become eradicated additionally the Arizona Legislature will not enact reforms to profit borrowers while preserving this essential option that is financial. This measure brings dramatic pro-consumer reform to payday lending and protect customer option. It provides a rate that is substantial, 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 usually guaranteed with a check postdated to your debtor’s next payday. The attention price into the lack of legislation had typically worked away to on average $15 per $100 lent on a loan that is two-week. The high rates of interest had been exactly exactly just what had resulted in legislative tries to control the industry. The training had been illegal in fifteen states during 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 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 season when an enabling law expires, might have its straight to exercise in the state extended indefinitely.
  • Costs payday loan providers are permitted to fee would drop from $17.65 to $15 on a $100, two-week loan.
  • Lenders would not be allowed to move on the principal into extensive loans and will have to provide customers payment plans.


“Arizonans for Financial Reform” had been supporting this effort. It absolutely was filed as a result into the avoid payday advances Initiative, which may expel all loans that are payday.

Based on the internet site of some other affiliated help company, “Reform Arizona pay day loans,” 6 , large number of Arizonans usage payday advances responsibly to pay for unforeseen day-to-day costs. But, the website warns is ace cash express loans a payday loan, the avoid pay day loans Initiative would eliminate this easy monetary choice in Arizona. Supporters with this measure argued that eliminating pay day loans totally would harm numerous families economically, through higher banking fees, bank 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 precipitates to customer choice.

“Payday-lending stores occur because clients within the world that is real logical choices about borrowing cash short-term, and in numerous instances, payday advances will be the most inexpensive selection for somebody that has an urgent situation or unexpected 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 meant for Proposition 200 included:

  • Prop. 200 would mandate a significant cut in loan charges
  • Establishes a flexible payment plan
  • Needs internet loan providers to be certified into the state
  • Enacts tough new laws to break straight straight down on unscrupulous operators
  • “About 5 % of People in the us have taken down a quick payday loan. There is scant proof that their lot could have been better if rejected that possibility. A research by two economists using the ny Federal Reserve Bank discovered 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. was donated by – guess who? – a trade team representing lenders that are payday the Arizona Community Financial solutions Association.” 8


The website No On 200 : It really 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 pay day loans initiative 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 does not lengthen the minimum loan term of five times, therefore keeping loan that is payday at 391% APR or worse
  • Electronic use of debtor accounts provides payday lenders unfettered debit access to client bank records and facilitates overcharging
  • The payment plan provision limits customers’ straight to request a payment want to when per 12 months.
  • “The argument that shutting cash advance shops 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 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 represent them within their efforts. Relating to Woods, after learning a proposition because of the industry, he was convinced there is an accepted spot when you look at the state of payday loan providers. 11

Way 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 throughout the ballot language. In accordance 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 make clear the language that is descriptive of 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 make clear 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 words to spell out issues that are complex choices need to be made.

Leave a Reply

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