These are quick explanations of the statewide initiatives that will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot. If you want more information on the propositions, look for the election booklet published by the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, or go online to the Secretary of State Ofice’s Web site �” http://www.azsos.gov/ �” and click on the “elections” link.

Proposition 100: Protect Our Homes

This measure would constitutionally prohibit any state or local tax or fee on the sale or transfer of real estate.

• Arguments for: The Arizona Association of Realtors, which is financing the campaign, acknowledges there is no such levy now. But the idea has been raised from time to time as various commissions have considered broadening the types of transactions subject to state sales taxes but reducing the overall rate.

• Arguments against: The Arizona Education Association says decisions of what to tax should be left in the hands of legislators who may need a new source of revenue to deal with the state’s rapid population growth.

Proposition 101: Medical Choice for Arizon

If approved it would amend the state constitution to bar any legislation which would require individuals to buy health insurance or pay a fee to opt out. It also would ban any measure which limits an individual’s choice of doctors.

• Arguments for: The crafters and financial backers of the measure, both doctors, want to bar any legislative or voter-backed measure which would impose any state-imposed universal health care as a method of controlling costs.

• Arguments against: Foes want to leave open what they believe are viable options for dealing with the fact more than 1 million Arizonans have no health care.

Proposition 102: Marriage Constitutional Amendmen

This would put a provision in the constitution defining marriage in Arizona as solely between one man and one woman.

• Arguments for: While the language largely duplicates a 1996 state law, putting it in the constitution could preclude a court from declaring the statute invalid. That is what happened in California where that state’s Supreme Court said the ban on same-sex marriages violated constitutional rights. The Legislature put this measure on the ballot at the behest of the Center for Arizona Policy which describes itself as lobbying for traditional values, and the state’s two Catholic bishops.

• Arguments against: Opponents say the measure would put a form of discrimination in the constitution and reflect the views of only certain religious groups. They also question the need for what they say is a divisive amendment, pointing out that a challenge to that 1996 law was rejected by the state Court of Appeals.

Proposition 105: Majority Rules, Let the People Decide

Current law says any ballot measure needs a majority of those voting on the issue to pass. This would raise the bar to require a majority of those registered to vote even if they stayed home for any statewide initiative that would raise taxes or impose new spending requirements on the state, individuals or businesses.

• Arguments for: This is being pushed and financed largely by Jason LeVecke, owner of Carl’s Jr. franchises in Arizona. He says that ballot measures pushed by special interests mandate new state programs and force up taxes. He also is upset with a successful 2006 ballot measure which hiked the state’s minimum wage above the federal level.

• Arguments against: Approving this measure likely would kill any future initiatives with spending mandates because voter turnout is far less than the number of registered voters. Opponents include the Arizona Education Association, the Clean Elections Institute, the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association and others who have benefited from prior measures.

Proposition 200: Payday Loan Reform Act

This would override a current law that will otherwise put payday lenders out of business in Arizona in 2010. The measure would reduce what lenders could charge slightly, from $17.85 per $100 for the two-week loans to $15.

• Arguments for: The payday loan industry, which crafted and is financing the campaign, argues there is a place in Arizona for the high-interest, short-term loans. They say the state should not dictate what options are available to consumers, particularly those without credit histories that let them borrow for less.

• Arguments against: Opponents note that the effective annual interest rate even with the change would be 391 percent. They say the loans prey on people’s ignorance of the terms and that people end up not being able to repay the amount.

Proposition 201: Homeowners Bill of Rights

This would require home-builders to provide a 10-year warranty on new homes and tilt existing laws more in favor of buyers. That includes eliminating a provision in current law which says if buyers lose a lawsuit they are liable to builders for legal fees and costs.

• Arguments for: The Sheet Metal Workers International Association, which is funding the measure, contends that home buyers need more protections from shoddy work. They argue that the current laws and statutes of limitation on lawsuits favor home builders.

• Arguments against: Home builders are financing the opposition, saying that removing the “loser pays” provision of the law becomes an invitation to more lawsuits. Opponents also question whether 10-year warranties are appropriate.

Proposition 202: Stop Illegal Hiring

This would ease some of the provisions in the state’s employer sanctions law which allows a judge to suspend or revoke business licenses of firms found guilty of knowingly hiring undocumented workers. It provides employers with additional legal protections and raises the legal bar to get convictions.

• Arguments for: This is backed by some business groups that oppose the original law. They contend the provisions are unfair and can punish employers for inadvertent errors. Some also argue that the existing law, which took effect Jan. 1, is causing economic harm to the state by discouraging companies from locating or expanding here.

• Arguments against: Foes say that the only way to cut down on illegal immigration is to dry up the jobs that attract people here. They say there are too many loopholes in this proposal, with Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, architect of the existing law, calling this measure “amnesty.”

Proposition 300

Placed on the ballot by a special commission, this measure asks voters to hike the salary of state lawmakers from $24,000 a year to $30,000. The last voter-approved increase was in 1998.

• Arguments for: Commission members who support the measure said it reflects both economic changes since then and the fact that legislative sessions last longer. Backers also believe it will lead more people to run for office.

• Arguments against: Gov. Janet Napolitano says voters should reject the measure because lawmakers should not get a pay hike at a time when Arizonans are not getting more money.