Taking Issue With 202 Support

Advertisement

Editor:

With 19 propositions on the Nov. 7 ballot, it is certainly understandable how a detailed attention to each might strain the resources of any publication. But Proposition 202's four-page, 2,000-word ramble should have aroused a little more curiosity from the Payson Roundup, before it made its endorsement of it.

  • Prop. 202 would create a new commission with powers to charge, arrest, try, and convict anyone suspected of breaking any of the measure's provisions, and it would be free from any legislative or agency oversight.
  • Allows law enforcement, such as the state attorney general, and county, city, and town attorneys, to look at records.
  • Accusers can choose to remain anonymous and can designate anyone to act on their behalf. The designee would have access to employment records.
  • Anyone can file a claim against a business, whether or not they know the accuser, and they don't need permission from a supposedly aggrieved party.
  • Employers would have to wait 90 days before dismissing an under-performing employee.
  • Employees have a full two years to bring charges against an employer.
  • Employees can still sue an employer even while awaiting a decision from the commission on their charges.
  • If the employer wins a case against an accuser, he cannot collect attorneys' fees from the accuser, but the accuser can collect attorneys' fees from the employer, if he or she prevails.
  • Prop. 202 would create whole new groups of employers, such as people who hire babysitters on a regular basis and seniors who make regular use of some in-home care.
  • It would require these and all other employers to keep four years worth of records. And if they don't have them, they are presumed guilty of all charges until proved innocent.
  • If hauled before the new commission, employers have to demonstrate "clear and convincing" evidence, which is just below the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is also a much higher legal standard than the federal government's requirement of "preponderance of evidence."

These are only a few of the many insidious provisions contained in Prop. 202, which is why the state's leading newspapers, such as The Arizona Republic, East Valley Tribune, Prescott Daily Courier, Yuma Sun and Inside Tucson Business have come out against it. We urge the electorate to vote No on 202.

Michelle Bolton, Arizona State Director, National Federation of Independent Business

Commenting has been disabled for this item.