PHOENIX — Arizona’s initiative system is coming under new scrutiny in the wake of surprising developments concerning what ballot questions will end up actually being submitted to general-elecion voters.

Those include having proposals on high-profile growth issues failing to make the ballot despite big-ticket campaigns to pay for signatures. Meanwhile, another measure’s eligibility for the ballot was contested for a time even after election materials went to the printer without including it.

Referring to the then-unresolved status of Proposition 104 on affirmative action, a judge pronounced the situation “a mess” as he weighed conflicting interests of observing initiative supporters’ rights and the state’s duty to start preparations so voters get ballots on time.

Supporters of that initiative ultimately abandoned their effort, saying it was “cheated” by time and other circumstances.

Looking ahead, state legislators now are expected to weigh numerous ideas to “fix” the initiative system.

Those could include recycled proposals to move up filing deadlines so there’s more time to process petitions and resolve legal challenges. There also could be new restrictions on the use of paid circulators, long regarded as a necessary evil for campaigns but increasingly seen as a source of invalid or even forged petition signatures.

“Paying circulators by the signature just invites fraud and unnecessary errors,” said Secretary of State Jan Brewer, a Republican who is the state’s top elections officer. “We learned a lesson from bad petitions being turned in.”

Rejection rates for petition signatures exceeded 40 percent in some cases, well above the 25 percent or typically in years past.

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat who supported a lawsuit that alleged fraud and other petition problems with the affirmative action measure, said she and other lawmakers will examine ways to ensure that the process is “more fair and open.”

“I don’t have the answer right now, but I do know there’s a group of us, (a) bipartisan group, committed to ensure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen again in our state,” she said.

Even before that, voters on Nov. 4 will decide a ballot measure to make it harder to pass initiatives with price tags for voters.

Proposition 105 would require that such measures be approved by a majority of all voters, not just those casting ballots, to take effect.

That’d be a truly high hurdle to clear, said David Berman, a senior research fellow with Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy. “That would pretty much put an end to the process.”

On the other hand, one way to instill a measure of restraint in what voters approve would be to require a renewal vote some years down the road, as some other states do, Berman said.

Requiring initiative petitions to be filed many months ahead of the current deadline — the deadline was July 3 this year — would hinder citizens’ ability to collect petition signatures, said Sandy Bahr, a Sierra Club lobbyist who defends the initiative process.

However, advocates are willing to talk about moving up the current deadline by a month, she said.

Requiring that paid petition circulators be paid hourly is “worth exploring,” Bahr said. “I don’t know if it would make a huge difference or not but there’d be less of an incentive to turn in bad signatures.”

Dating from statehood and the Progressive Era of American politics, Arizona’s initiative system allows voters to sign petitions to put proposed laws on the ballot.

That’s important when there are “choke points” at the Legislature, Berman said. “The only opportunity is to go to voters directly.”

In recent years, that system has seen Arizona voters approve measures ranging from making illegal immigrants ineligible for certain public services to raising the state sales tax to pay for education improvements like teacher pay raises.

This year, voters won’t be deciding Proposition 203 on transportation funding or Proposition 103 on state trust land.

Both enjoyed support from Gov. Janet Napolitano and seemingly potent arrays of backers who bankrolled expensive campaigns. But both of those petition drives startlingly fell short of delivering on the number of valid petition signatures required.

On the other hand, six other initiative campaigns were successful. Along with Proposition 105, those included measures on hiring of illegal immigrants, real estate transfer taxes, medical service choices, payday loans and homeowners’ rights.

Backers of the transportation and trust land measures tried to overcome their decertifications, but courts ruled that essential parts of those challenges were filed too late under a legal deadline that previously had been ignored.

If that deadline stays on the books, it means initiative backers will have to file pre-emptive lawsuits even before they know whether their proposals are being knocked off the ballot, said Paul Eckstein, a lawyer for both failed campaigns.

That would not only clog the courts but also waste money for campaigns, impairing those that don’t have unlimited bankrolls, Eckstein said. “It makes this whole process more time consuming and expensive.”

Measures appearing on Arizona’s Nov. 4 general election ballot:

• PROPOSITION 100: An initiative to amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit any new tax on transfers or sales of real estate.

• PROPOSITION 101: An initiative to amend the Constitution to prohibit laws that would restrict the right to make choices on health care services and coverage.

• PROPOSITION 102: A legislative referral to amend the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.

• PROPOSITION 105: An initiative to amend the Constitution to require that any initiatives requiring spending or tax increases be approved by a majority of all registered voters, not just those casting ballots.

• PROPOSITION 200: An initiative to change state law to remove the 2010 automatic expiration of the current law authorizing payday loans and to place new restrictions on those high-interest, short-term loans.

• PROPOSITION 201: An initiative to provide new warranty and other rights to property buyers, including buyers of new homes.

• PROPOSITION 202: An initiative to change a 2007 state law against hiring illegal immigrants by, among other things, tightening rules on making complaints and targeting who pay workers under the table.

• PROPOSITION 300: A referral by a state commission to raise the 90 state legislators’ annual salary to $30,000 from the current $24,000.

———

On the Net:

Unofficial state list: http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/General/ballotmeasures.htmw