Voters examined two ballot measures Tuesday night that could make big impacts on ASU's future in the next few years, defeating Proposition 102 and approving Proposition 400 by sound margins.
Proposition 102's defeat means ASU officials won't be able to trade technologies developed at the University for stock in corporations.
The measure failed 56 to 44 percent, according to the Arizona Secretary of State's office.
ASU lobbyist Scott Smith said the University would still be able to share technologies with private organizations.
"We're going back to the drawing board to determine what our next actions are to improve the technology transfer process in the university system," Smith said.
Officials from Arizona's three public universities and more than 70 state legislators advocated amending Arizona's state constitution. They wanted to allow the state to license or transfer interests in technology, or intellectual property created or acquired by state universities or the Board of Regents, in exchange for ownership interests and securities in a company or corporation.
Charlie Lewis, a spokesman for Arizona Technology Enterprises, said ASU scientists are in the process of developing improved smallpox vaccines and "biosensors," which detect people's metabolic rates. These products could be researched and developed at ASU and given to a biotechnology firm in exchange for shares of the company's stock.
With Proposition 102 defeated, the University could share the technology, but it wouldn't get any stock -- just a license or patent for the product.
"For a lot of companies, it's difficult to come up with the necessary cash to do the necessary research," Smith said. "This measure would have allowed us to take cash instead of [a license] as payment."
The Goldwater Institute, a public policy think tank, released a report Oct. 25 stating its disagreement with the initiative.
"Article 9, Section 7 of the state constitution was designed to end a long history of corrupt local governments and the wasting of public funds in speculative ventures," the report stated. "Without this prohibition, officials can enter into sweetheart deals with private companies."
Lewis said the measure would be at "absolutely no risk or financial burden to all," and the policy had been designed to avoid creating conflicts of interest.
"It's a disappointment that it didn't pass, but we're going to continue getting technology out to the marketplace," Lewis said.
Proposition 400, another proposition that could affect ASU, was passed by Maricopa County voters Tuesday.
The proposition extends an existing half-cent sales tax for the next 20 years to fund buses, freeways and the light rail, said Ken Driggs, executive director for Valley Metro. The measure will provide about $9 billion over its course, Driggs said.
ASU's expanding East, West and Downtown campuses will be linked to the main campus in the next few years through buses and extensions to an approved "starter line" for light rail, which extends from Phoenix to Mesa.
"The fact is, if you go city by city, it will have a positive value and positive ratings," Driggs said.
Richard Stanley, senior vice president for University Planning, said ASU would benefit from the starter light rail line.
"The more options that are available for students, faculty and staff, the better it will be for all those involved," Stanley said.
Camilla Strongin, a spokeswoman for No on 400, an organization opposed to Proposition 400, said Maricopa County's sprawling suburban layout isn't suited for such an expensive project as light rail, or the expansion of it through the proposition.
"We are highly dependent on our cars, and we like that," Strongin said. "We like the flexibility it gives us."
Reach the reporter at nicole.saidi@asu.edu.
