Arizona Cash Advance Reform, Proposition 200 (2008)

Arizona Cash Advance Reform, Proposition 200 (2008)


  • 1 Election results
  • 2 Text regarding 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 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 referred to as the cash advance Reform Act, ended up being regarding the November ballot in Arizona being a citizen-initiated amendment that is constitutional. It absolutely was beaten.

The payday-loan effort had been mainly supported by the payday-loan company within the continuing state, and ended up being less strict than the avoid payday advances Initiative, sponsored by Rep. Marion McClure, D-30, and Sen. Debbie McCune Davis, D-14. That measure had been withdrawn during the early June if not sufficient signatures had been being gathered to qualify it for the ballot. 1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 40.4per cent

Text regarding the 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 every day to meet up with unexpected costs and monetary emergencies. The payday financing industry is scheduled become eradicated while the Arizona Legislature does not want to enact reforms to profit borrowers while preserving this important monetary option. This measure brings dramatic pro-consumer reform to payday lending and protect customer option. It offers a rate that is substantial, removes rolling-over principal to extend that loan, produces a payment plan free of charge to clients that can not fulfill their responsibilities, and inhibits a debtor’s power to get one or more loan at the same time. 3 4


The payday lending industry had been an $85 billion industry providing you with short-term loans, that have been frequently guaranteed having a check postdated into the borrower’s next payday. The attention price when you look at the lack of legislation had typically worked off to on average $15 per $100 borrowed on a two-week loan. The interest that is high had been just exactly what had resulted in legislative tries to control the industry. The training had been unlawful in fifteen states in the period 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 amount 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 year when an enabling law expires, will have its directly to exercise within 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 throughout the principal into extensive loans and will have to offer customers repayment plans.


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

In line with the site of some other support that is affiliated, “Reform Arizona pay day loans,” 6 , several thousand Arizonans usage pay day loans responsibly to cover unforeseen day-to-day expenses. But, the website warns, the avoid pay day loans Initiative would eliminate this easy option that is financial Arizona. Supporters for this measure argued that eliminating loans that are payday would hurt numerous families economically, through higher banking fees, charge card belated costs, and energy reconnect costs. 6

Stan Barnes, a lobbyist and consultant to Americans for Financial Reform, a committee funded by the payday-loan industry, supported this measure and stated the problem boils down to customer option.

“Payday-lending shops occur because clients when you look at the world that is real logical choices about borrowing cash short-term, as well as in numerous instances, pay day loans would be the most inexpensive selection for somebody that has a crisis or unexpected cost they need to cope with,” Barnes stated.

Supporters included that ending all loans that are payday Arizona would also expel a lot more than 2,500 Arizona jobs. 6

Supporting arguments

Main arguments put forward to get Proposition 200 included:

  • Prop. 200 would mandate a significant cut in loan costs
  • Establishes a repayment plan that is flexible
  • Needs lenders that are internet be certified within the state
  • Enacts tough brand new laws to split straight straight straight down on unscrupulous operators
  • “About 5 % of People in the us took down an online payday loan. There is scant proof that their great deal might have been better if rejected that possibility. A research by two economists because of the New York Federal Reserve Bank unearthed that after Georgia and new york abolished payday financing, 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 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 group representing payday loan providers: 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 Party that is democratic of endorsed the avoid pay day loans effort and argued that payday advances are “by definition predatory and benefit from economically vulnerable 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 keeping cash advance items at 391% APR or worse
  • Electronic use of debtor accounts provides payday lenders debit that is unfettered to consumer bank reports and facilitates overcharging
  • The payment plan supply limits customers’ straight to request a payment want to when per 12 months.
  • “The argument that shutting cash advance shops will be a blow into the economy is similarly spurious. It could assist the economy whenever we legalized the purchase of heroin and allow merchants hawk it in the road, but it doesn’t suggest it can make our everyday lives any benefit. A market that thrives on keeping customers bad will not assist the economy.” 10


Pay check lenders failed to disappear completely therefore effortlessly after the measure’s beat, because they attempted to persuade lawmakers to allow them remain in company throughout the autumn of 2009. Relating to reports, the industry hired state that is former General give Woods to express them inside their efforts. Relating to Woods, after learning a proposal by the industry, he was convinced there clearly was an accepted destination 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 within 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 failed to 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 make clear the language. Judge Myers stated that the description of this ballot measure drafted by Secretary Brewer had been technically accurate, and that with just 50 words to describe complex dilemmas, alternatives need to be made.

Leave a Reply

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