Related articles:

State secretary goes to court over same-sex ballot initiative Official sues: Don't tell voters about same-sex law

Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Failed legislative bill leaves public-financed campaigns in doubtBurns: Brewer bungling her job House approves boost in funding for those seeking office next year 3 recommended to Brewer to fill seat on high court AZ can enact own greenhouse gas regsRecession reins in sprawl Pet bills aplenty pouring forth from Legislature Brewer wants budget right away, but not those other, lesser bills Flat-tax plan could hit walletsRepeal of ban on sparklers nears final OK

Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps

PHOENIX — Arizona voters will be told when they go to the polls that it already is illegal for gays to marry in this state.

Secretary of State Jan Brewer agreed late Tuesday to add that fact to the description of Proposition 102 that will appear on the November ballots. Approval would add a same-sex-marriage ban to the state constitution.

Brewer — along with supporters of the measure — originally did not want that language used, saying it would only confuse voters. But Attorney General Terry Goddard, who has to approve the ballot summaries she writes, said the addition was necessary.

Goddard, in turn, agreed to wording that informs voters that Proposition 102's defeat would leave Arizona with only a statute, without a constitutional amendment, defining marriage.

The agreement ends the lawsuit Brewer filed against Goddard when the pair could not agree on how to describe the effects of the measure.

But there may be a last-minute wrinkle. Late Tuesday, Proposition 102 supporters filed their own lawsuit against Brewer and Goddard, demanding that any reference to state law be stripped from the description. Sen. Ron Gould, a Lake Havasu City Republican who sponsored the legislation that put the measure on the ballot, said any discussion of the statute is designed only to confuse voters.

That lawsuit, however, may be too late to matter.

Deputy Secretary of State Kevin Tyne said the final go-ahead was given Tuesday night to start printing the publicity pamphlets, which will be sent to the home of every registered voter. The pamphlets, like the ballots themselves, will have the agreed-upon description.

There was no agreement, however, in a separate dispute Tuesday over Proposition 200.

Judge Sam Myers of Maricopa County Superior Court rejected efforts by opponents of the measure to force Brewer to inform voters that the proposition's approval would permanently allow payday lenders to charge fees on two-week loans of up to $500, an amount that could reach the equivalent of 391 percent interest when calculated for a year.

State Sen. Debbie McCune Davis, D-Phoenix, acknowledged that payday-loan businesses already can charge that much under a special exemption to the usury laws passed in 2000. But she said voters need to be informed that if the proposition fails, the maximum interest rate in Arizona will revert to 36 percent on July 1, 2010.

Myers, however, said the description Brewer crafted was legally appropriate, and he noted that the law gives Brewer only 50 words to explain what can be complex issues. "Choices have to be made," the judge said.

The spat over the gay-marriage measure comes as supporters seek to convince voters that a constitutional amendment is necessary, despite the 1996 law that prohibits homosexuals from marrying in this state. That same statute, approved by the Legislature, says weddings legally performed in other states that recognize same-sex marriages will not be recognized here.

Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, a group that lobbies for "restoring traditional principles" to public policy, has pointed out that California also had a law banning gay marriage. But that was overturned earlier this year by that state's Supreme Court.

Two years ago, a similar constitutional ban on same-sex weddings, plus a ban on government-provided domestic-partner benefits, was narrowly defeated.

Attorney Peter Gentala, representing backers of the change, said some people who voted against the measure two years ago "were confused about the effect of their vote" because the ballot description was similar to the one being used this year.