Arizona, like many Western states, maintains a proud tradition of citizen initiative.
While this tradition can be controversial and arguably abused, Proposition 202 is a prime example of the precise conditions for which this constitutional check on politicians was intended.
Proposition 202 has been put forward by a broad-based movement in order to do what people have demanded in overwhelming numbers.
The politicians in Arizona's Legislature have been too afraid to act for fear that it might offend their ideological brethren, and so the citizenry has saved them the effort.
This proposition, which has terrified those captains of industry who might be inconvenienced by this reasonable proposal, has brought a veritable gaggle of straw men from out of the woodwork.
The opponents of Proposition 202 have desperately attempted to hide the true motivations behind their efforts: an ideological dogma that opposes the premise of a minimum wage entirely.
The spurious claims that the minimum wage is economically detrimental are tired remnants of the laissez faire ideology that was last in fashion at the same time as the Charleston.
The establishment of a federal minimum wage occurred in the New Deal era, prior to the postwar explosion of the American middle class, a positive economic development one would think would be impossible with the supposed albatross of the minimum wage around our national neck.
The fact of the matter is that while the minimum wage may provide small, short-term inconveniences to some specific individuals, in the greater scheme of American life it is a moral policy with negligible, anecdotal side effects.
Furthermore, an argument can be made that by increasing the purchasing power of a greater number of workers, a livable minimum wage can increase the number of potential consumers, thus in the long run creating a more profitable situation all around.
An even more ludicrous argument is that the minimum wage begins a slippery slope toward socialism. This particular "boogeyman" is comical due to the fact that some of the most notable historical proponents of the minimum wage, and more specifically the living wage, were Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI, respectively.
Momentarily set aside the explicit non-communism of Catholic social teaching; when examining a tract of political theory such as "Rerum Novarum" and "Quadragesimo Anno," one would expect that when such a tract uses the royal "we" with the utmost sincerity, it is not motivated by covert bolshevism.
By following the federal minimum wage, Arizona has not seen an increase in its minimum wage in nearly a decade.
This proposition, while many might argue does not go far enough in affording a living wage to the workers of Arizona, is a positive development in a political climate that does not provide many bright spots to advocates of a social-market economy.
The remarkable consensus behind Proposition 202 has frustrated its opponents, causing them to resort to making the maliciously misleading claim that Proposition 202 would endanger privacy rights.
They say "state bureaucrats" can supposedly have access to personal records. This contention reveals the desperation behind the opponents of Proposition 202.
The text of the proposition does absolutely nothing to weaken privacy laws or empower "state bureaucrats" to prey on unsuspecting citizens.
The only predatory actors in this scenario are the deliriously misguided backers of the opposition campaign, whose anachronistic fear of an ultramild proto-Christian democratic social reform initially enacted generations ago has caused them to stoop to new lows in order to anti-heroically attempt to kill this proposition.
Proposition 202 provides a unique opportunity to the voters of Arizona to join their community in taking a collective step in the humanitarian direction in our economic interactions. Human work has inherent dignity, and the time has come for our common effort in government to once again reflect this natural truth.
Joaquin Rios is president of ASU's Young Democrats, and can be reached at: joaquin.rios@asu.edu.
