Arizona Cash Advance Reform, Proposition 200 (2008)

Arizona Cash Advance Reform, Proposition 200 (2008)


  • 1 Election results
  • 2 Text associated with effort
  • 3 History
  • 4 information on the proposal
  • 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 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 referred to as the cash advance Reform Act, had been in the November ballot in Arizona as being a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment. It absolutely was beaten.

The payday-loan initiative had been mainly supported by the payday-loan company when you look at the 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 That measure ended up being withdrawn during the early June if not sufficient signatures had been being gathered to qualify it for the ballot. 1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 59.6%
Yes 860,607 40.4%

Text for the effort

The 100-word description filed 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 scheduled become eradicated and also the Arizona Legislature refuses to enact reforms to profit borrowers while preserving this crucial 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, produces a payment plan free of charge to clients that can not fulfill their responsibilities, and inhibits a debtor’s capability to get one or more loan at the same time. 3 4


The payday financing industry had been an $85 billion industry providing you with short-term loans, that have been often secured 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 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 during the right time of Proposition 200. In 2008, along with 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 check n go loans customer service on the proposition

Under this proposition:

  • The payday-loan industry, which faces reduction this season when an enabling law expires, might have its directly to exercise within 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 throughout 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 in reaction towards the avoid payday advances Initiative, which may expel all payday advances.

Based on the site of some other support that is affiliated, ”Reform Arizona pay day loans,” 6 , lots and lots of Arizonans usage pay day loans responsibly to pay for unforeseen day-to-day expenses. But, your website warns, the avoid payday advances Initiative would take away this easy economic choice in Arizona. Supporters with this measure argued that eliminating payday advances 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 said the problem boils down to consumer option.

”Payday-lending shops occur because clients within the real life make logical choices about borrowing cash short-term, as well as in numerous circumstances, pay day loans will be the most inexpensive selection for somebody that has an urgent situation or unforeseen expense they need to 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 to get Proposition 200 included:

  • Prop. 200 would mandate a cut that is substantial loan costs
  • Establishes a repayment plan that is flexible
  • Needs lenders that are internet be certified within the state
  • Enacts tough regulations that are new split down on unscrupulous operators
  • ”About 5 per cent of Us citizens 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 with all 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 given about $8.7 million 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 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 Stop Payday Loans Initiative campaign, stated that cash advance reform, similar to this cash advance Reform Act]], is absolutely nothing a lot more than ”window dressing.” 9

The Party that is democratic of 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, therefore maintaining loan that is payday at 391% APR or worse
  • Electronic use of debtor accounts offers payday lenders debit that is unfettered to consumer bank reports and facilitates overcharging
  • The repayment plan supply limits customers’ straight to request a payment intend to when per 12 months.
  • ”The argument that shutting loan that is payday will be a blow towards the economy is similarly spurious. It could assist the economy whenever we legalized the purchase of heroin and let merchants hawk it regarding the road, but that does not 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 would not disappear completely therefore effortlessly after the measure’s beat, because they attempted to persuade lawmakers to allow them stay in company throughout the autumn of 2009. Based on reports, the industry hired previous state Attorney General give Woods to express them inside their efforts. Based on Woods, after learning a proposition because of the industry, he was convinced there clearly was an accepted spot 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 unwittingly accept a limit of 400 per cent rates of interest for payday advances in the event that Secretary of State failed to 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.

Lämna ett svar

Din e-postadress kommer inte publiceras. Obligatoriska fält är märkta *