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 Back Ground
  • 4 information on the proposition
  • 5 Supporters
    • 5.1 Supporting arguments
    • 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 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 in the November ballot in Arizona as a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment. It absolutely was beaten.

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 That measure ended up being withdrawn during the early June if not sufficient signatures had been being gathered to qualify it for the ballot. 1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

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

Arizonans use payday lending services each and every day to generally meet unexpected costs and monetary emergencies. The is extralend loans legit payday lending industry is scheduled to be eradicated in addition to Arizona Legislature does not want to enact reforms to profit borrowers while preserving this crucial option that is financial. This measure brings dramatic reform that is pro-consumer payday lending and protect consumer 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 capacity 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 frequently secured with a check postdated to your 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 for a loan that is two-week. The high interest levels had been exactly just what had resulted in legislative tries to control the industry. The training had been unlawful in fifteen states during the right time 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 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, will have its straight to exercise within 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 move throughout the principal into extensive loans and will have to provide customers payment plans.


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

In line with the site of some other support that is affiliated, “Reform Arizona pay day loans,” 6 , a huge number of Arizonans usage pay day loans responsibly to pay for unanticipated day-to-day costs. But, the website warns, the avoid payday advances Initiative would remove this easy option that is financial Arizona. Supporters of the measure argued that eliminating pay day loans entirely would hurt numerous families economically, through higher banking fees, bank 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 presssing problem boils down to customer option.

“Payday-lending stores occur because clients into the world that is real rational choices about borrowing cash short-term, as well as in numerous circumstances, payday advances would be the most inexpensive selection for some people that have an urgent situation or unexpected cost they should cope with,” Barnes said.

Supporters included that closing all payday advances in Arizona would also eradicate 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 costs
  • Establishes a repayment plan that is flexible
  • Requires internet loan providers to be certified within the state
  • Enacts tough regulations that are new break straight straight straight down on unscrupulous operators
  • “About 5 % of Us americans took down an online payday loan. There is scant proof that their great deal could have been better if denied that opportunity. A research by two economists utilizing the ny Federal Reserve Bank discovered 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 provided about $8.7 million up to a campaign committee arranged to advertise the effort. The Arizona Republic stated that “nearly every cent. happens to be donated by – guess who? – a trade team representing payday loan providers: 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 avoid Payday Loans Initiative campaign, said that cash advance reform, like this cash advance Reform Act]], is nothing but “window dressing.” 9

The Democratic Party of Arizona endorsed the Stop 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 cycles of financial obligation.”

Opposing arguments

Main arguments proposed versus Proposition 200 included:

  • Prop. 200 does not lengthen the minimum loan term of five days, hence keeping pay day loan items at 391% APR or worse
  • Electronic usage of debtor accounts offers payday lenders debit that is unfettered to client bank reports and facilitates overcharging
  • The payment plan supply limits customers’ directly to request a payment intend to as soon as per 12 months.
  • “The argument that shutting cash advance shops is a blow to your 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 doesn’t assist the economy.” 10


Pay check loan providers failed to disappear completely so effortlessly after the measure’s beat, them stay in business during the fall of 2009 as they tried to convince lawmakers to let. Relating to 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 was clearly spot into 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 name lawsuit

Arizonans for Responsible Lending filed case within the ballot language. Based on the lawsuit, voters might unwittingly accept a limit of 400 per cent rates of interest for pay day loans in the event that Secretary of State failed to make clear 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 associated with the ballot measure drafted by Secretary Brewer had been theoretically accurate, and therefore with just 50 terms to describe issues that are complex alternatives have to be made.