Related articles:

Payday lending industry down, but not out

General
Drexel Height Fire District
Firefighter General
MEDLEY COMMUNICATIONS
INSTALLATION PROFESSIONAL Part Time Employment
AVIVA Children's Services
Monitor: Parent-Child Visits

Arizona voters took a major step toward protecting financially vulnerable consumers Tuesday by rejecting Proposition 200, which would have given payday lenders the right to do business in Arizona forever.

In defeating Prop. 200 by a 60-40 margin, voters proved that grass-roots consensus, common sense and doing the right thing can sometimes trump special-interest dollars.

The payday-lending industry mounted the second-most-expensive initiative campaign in Arizona history, raising $14.6 million to pass its mislabeled "reform" measure. The proposition's opponents raised about $360,000 — roughly $1 for every $13 that the industry had at its disposal.

The industry was able to buy an untold number of television commercials and put up many more road signs. But in the end, it seems money is the only thing the pro-200 campaign had in abundance.

Grass-roots organizations were able to mobilize voters, religious groups and politicians to raise awareness about the evils of payday loans, which charge fees equal to an annual interest rate of about 460 percent.

Many media outlets, including the Star, were also able to spread the word that payday loans often do more harm than good for consumers who lack access to traditional credit.

By rejecting Prop. 200, there's a good chance the law that legalized payday lending will expire as scheduled on July 1, 2010. If that happens, no consumer loans could exceed the state's 36 percent usury cap.

Payday lending will still be around for a while, but this form of legalized loan-sharking may soon be history thanks to Arizonans who didn't fall for the industry's deceptive tactics.

Meanwhile, another special-interest group — religious conservatives — managed to persuade voters to approve Proposition 102, which will write into the state constitution that "only a union of one man and one woman shall be recognized as a marriage in this state."

The passage of Prop. 102 changes little immediately because state law already allows only marriages between one man and one woman.

However, we hope conservatives don't use this victory as the first step toward denying legal benefits for same-sex couples. That's exactly what happened when Michigan passed a similar constitutional amendment in 2004.

Prop. 102 supporters now have the constitutional language they sought to "protect" the institution of marriage from so-called activist judges. Let's hope it stops there.

Thankfully, the potentially damaging Proposition 105 was soundly defeated by a 66-34 margin.

This measure was dangerous because it would have given power to people who don't go to the polls by requiring that future initiatives that involved spending or taxes be approved by all registered voters.

We believe in power to the people, but individuals have the responsibility to actually cast a ballot.