Arizona Proposition 208, Tax on Incomes Exceeding $250,000 for Teacher Salaries and Schools Initiative (2020)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Arizona Proposition 208
Flag of Arizona.png
Election date
November 3, 2020
Topic
Taxes and Education
Status
Approveda/Overturnedot Overturned
Type
State statute		Origin
Citizens

Arizona Proposition 208, the Tax on Incomes Exceeding $250,000 for Teacher Salaries and Schools Initiative, was on the ballot in Arizona as an initiated state statute on November 3, 2020. It was approved but then overturned by a court ruling.

A "yes" vote supported this ballot initiative to:

* enact a 3.50% income tax, in addition to the existing income tax (4.50% in 2020), on income above $250,000 (single filing) or $500,000 (joint filing) and 

* distribute the revenue from the 3.50% income tax to teacher and classroom support staff salaries, teacher mentoring and retention programs, career and technical education programs, and the Arizona Teachers Academy.

A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative, thus keeping the highest income tax rate at 4.50% (in 2020) on income above $159,000 (single filing) or $318,000 (joint filing).


Aftermath

Fann v. Yee

  
Lawsuit overview
Issue: Whether the initiative violates the Arizona Constitution by authorizing taxation outside the procedures prescribed in the constitution; whether the initiative violates the state legislature's power to appropriate tax revenue
Court: Arizona Superior Court and Maricopa County Superior Court
Ruling: The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the initiative's funding provisions do not fall under the constitution's definition of a grant and that those provisions were not separable and remanded the case back to the lower court; a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled the initiative's funding provisions based on the instructions from the supreme court were unconstitutional and overturned the initiative
Plaintiff(s): State Senate President Karen Fann (R), Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Russell Bowers (R), State Senator David Gowan (R), State Senator Venden Leach (R), State Representative Regina Cobb (R), State Representative John Kavanaugh (R), Montie Lee of Lee Farms, State Representative Steve Pierce (R), Dr. Francis Surdakowski, No on 28, and Arizona Free Enterprise ClubDefendant(s): Arizona State Treasurer Kimberly Yee (R) and Director of the Arizona Department of Revenue Carlton Woodruff
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative violates the Arizona Constitution because it authorizes a tax outside of the means prescribed in the constitution, infringes on the state legislature's power to allocate tax revenue, and violates the state constitution's appropriation limits for education.		Defendant argument:
The revenue generated by the initiative falls under the constitution's definition of a grant and, therefore, the spending limits and restrictions applied to taxes do not apply

  Source: KTAR

On November 30, 2020, the Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Arizona Superior Court, arguing that Proposition 208 violated the Arizona Constitution because the ballot initiative authorized a tax. Plaintiffs argued that the state constitution says that a tax can only be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature. According to the plaintiffs, the state constitution prohibited citizens from enacting laws which the legislature cannot itself enact. They also stated that the initiative sought "to exempt itself from the expenditure limitations for school districts specified in the Arizona Constitution;" violated the Revenue Source Rule in the Arizona Constitution; and restricted "the legislature’s ability to exercise its constitutional authority to appropriate general funds."[1]

On February 10, 2021, Judge John Hannah Jr. rejected plaintiffs' request for an injunction.[2] On June 15, 2021, Judge Hannah rejected the arguments against Proposition 208, except the question of whether the initiative's school grants violated the state spending limit.[3]

On August 19, 2021, the Arizona Supreme Court determined that the initiative's funding provisions did not fall under the constitution's definition of a grant, as defendants had argued, and " is, therefore, unconstitutional to the extent it mandates expending tax revenues in violation of the Education Expenditure Clause." However, the court did not rule that the entire initiative was unconstitutional. The court remanded the case back to the trial court.[4]

On March 11, 2022, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah ruled that the initiative was unconstitutional and overturned it. Hannah's ruling was based on the ruling from the Arizona Supreme Court. Hannah wrote, "This Court understands the remand order as a direction to declare Proposition 208 unconstitutional in its entirety, and to enjoin its operation permanently, if the Court finds as a fact that the annual education spending limits imposed by the Arizona Constitution will prevent Arizona’s public schools from spending a 'material' amount of Proposition 208 tax revenue in 2023. On that basis, the Court is obligated to strike down Proposition 208.” Hannah's ruling also stated that initiative sponsors could appeal since the supreme court's opinion was based on the initiative abstractly and that future concrete revenue scenarios could present different results for the case.[5]

Governor Doug Ducey (R) said, "This ruling is a win for Arizona taxpayers. It’s another step in undoing the damage of Prop. 208 and making sure we continue to benefit from having the lowest flat income tax rate in the nation."[6]

Rebecca Gau, CEO of Stand for Children, a partner of initiative sponsor Invest in Education, said, “We still have an opportunity. We have a $1 billion budget surplus, even with the tax cut they (lawmakers) want to get through." Gau said initiative proponents would consider an appeal.[6]

Election results

Arizona Proposition 208

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

1,675,810 51.75%
No 1,562,639 48.25%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Overview

How was the ballot initiative designed to increase income taxes?

The ballot initiative enacted a 3.50% income tax, in addition to the existing income tax, on taxable income above $250,000 (single filing) or $500,000 (joint filing).[7] In Arizona, business owners also filed pass-through income from sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, and S Corporations under the individual income tax code.[8]

As of 2020, the highest income tax in Arizona was 4.50%, which was levied on income above $159,000 (single filing) or $318,000 (joint filing). Based on the then-existing income tax rates, the ballot initiative would have had the effect of increasing the tax rate from 4.50% to 8.00% on income above $250,000 (single filing) or $500,000 (joint filing).[7]

How was the tax revenue set to be distributed?

The ballot initiative required that revenue from the 3.50% income tax be placed in the Student Support and Safety Fund (SSSF), which, after funding administrative costs, was set to be distributed as follows:[7]

  • 50% as grants to (i) school districts, (ii) charter schools, and (iii) state schools for the deaf and blind—in proportion to the weighted student count—to hire teachers and classroom support personnel and increase base compensation for teachers and classroom support personnel;
  • 25% as grants to (i) school districts, (ii) charter schools, and (iii) state schools for the deaf and blind—in proportion to the weighted student count—to hire student support services personnel and increasing base compensation for student support services personnel;
  • 10% as grants to (i) school districts, (ii) charter schools, and (iii) state schools for the deaf and blind—in proportion to the weighted student count—to provide mentoring and retention programming for new classroom teachers;
  • 12% to the Career Training and Workforce Fund, which would provide multi-year grants to school districts, charter schools, and career technical districts for career and technical programs for grades 9-12, college-level educational opportunities, academic acceleration programs, tutoring, mentoring, counseling, mental health services for high school students, and hiring school counselors; and
  • 3% to the Arizona Teachers Academy Fund, which was created to provide incentives and mentoring for students to become teachers and teach within the public school system.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the ballot initiative?

See also: Campaign finance

Invest in Education led the campaign in support of Proposition 208. Amber Gould, a high school teacher and state director of the National Education Association, was chairperson of Invest in Education. The campaign received $22.9 million. Stand for Children, Inc., a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that focuses on education policies, provided $9.8 million to Invest in Education. The National Education Association, a 501(c)(5) teachers’ organization, contributed $7.8 million.

Arizonans for Great Schools and a Strong Economy led the campaign against Proposition 208. Jaime Molera, a former Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction, was chairperson of the campaign. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry organized the campaign committee.[9] The campaign, along with the No on 208 PAC, received $8.3 million, including $640,000 from SAC Holding Corp. and $350,000 from the Arizona Chamber of Commerce.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:[10]

“ The law would impose a 3.5% tax surcharge on taxable annual income over $250,000 for single persons or married persons filing separately, or $500,000 for married persons filing jointly or heads of households, to increase funding for public education.[11] ”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:[7]

The width auto is invalid.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.


The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 19, and the FRE is 20. The word count for the ballot title is 36, and the estimated reading time is 9 seconds.


Support

#Support

Invest in Education, also known as Yes on 208, led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative.[12] Amber Gould, a high school teacher and state director of the National Education Association, was chairperson of Invest in Education.[13]

Supporters

Officials

Political Parties

  • Maricopa County Democratic Party

Unions

  • Arizona AFL-CIO

Organizations

  • Arizona Center for Economic Progress
  • Arizona Education Association
  • Arizona Interfaith Network
  • Children's Action Alliance
  • Democracy for America
  • Stand for Children, Inc.


Arguments

  • David Lujan, director of the Arizona Center for Economic Progress: "For the past few years, Arizona’s business leaders have consistently said that increased funding for Arizona’s public schools is critical to produce the skilled workforce Arizona needs for a strong economic future. The Invest in Ed ballot initiative will provide the strategic investments Arizona needs in it’s public schools to attract new businesses and jobs to our state and boost long-term economic growth, and that is a pro-business strategy. ... When passed, the top 1 percent of earners in Arizona – the ones who will be subject to this surcharge – will still pay a lower effective tax rate than 25 other states and lower state income taxes than the national average. Any income they earn below those accounts will be taxed under Arizona’s current income tax brackets, which we are not changing, and which are the fourth lowest in the nation. If Invest in Ed passes, the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of earners in Arizona will be 4.4 percent. The average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent nationally is 4.6 percent. And most importantly, Arizona’s public schools will have $940 million in new, annual, permanent funding to educate our students."
  • Carrie Wolf, president of the Tempe Elementary Education Association,: "Moreover, schools cannot safely function without nurses, counselors, bus drivers, instructional aids, and nutritional service workers. It is not too much to ask that we offer our professional wages for them, so they can afford to feed their families while they take care of ours."
  • Arizona Interfaith Network President Monica Dorcey, Rev. Martha Seaman, and Rev. Leah Sandwell-Weiss: "Now more than ever, our public schools, a cornerstone for our communities, need our support. Our Arizona students, parents, and teachers have become all too familiar with overcrowded classrooms, decrepit buildings, outdated textbooks, lack of classroom materials, and the loss of art, music and other enrichment programs. Especially alarming are the numbers of teachers moving to other states or leaving teaching altogether because they could not support themselves and their own families. Metrics from a myriad of sources confirm Arizona’s low standing in educational investment."
  • Siman Qaasim, CEO of the Children's Action Alliance: "Arizona has one of the worst teacher shortages and some of the largest class sizes in the nation. This measure will enable us to provide meaningful pay raises for teachers, classroom aides, and other student support staff. This will also enable schools to hire more counselors, school nurses, and other staff who keep students healthy and safe. Investing in public education now is especially important so school staff and administrators can help students recover the learning losses caused by the COVID-19 crisis."
  • Margaret Chaney, president of the Tucson Education Association: "We all know by now that strong public schools are the backbone of our communities. The COVID pandemic has taught us all a valuable lesson. Times have certainly changed but public school funding has not. During this historic period, we all discovered the depth of the inequities among our districts, sites, and student populations. ... Through it all we are asked to “make do” with less and less and of course, being the profession we are, we have summoned up our creativity and courage and done just that. However, everything has a limit and this pandemic has demonstrated to everyone that the continued stretching of public education funding has reached its limit."


Opposition

Arizona No on 208 2020.jpg

Arizonans for Great Schools and a Strong Economy, also known as No on 208, led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 208.[14]

Opponents

Officials

Organizations

  • Americans for Prosperity
  • Americans for Tax Reform
  • Arizona Association of Realtors
  • Arizona Automobile Dealers Association
  • Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
  • Arizona Farm Bureau
  • Arizona Lodging & Tourism Association
  • Arizona Manufacturers Council
  • Arizona Small Business Association
  • Arizona Tax Research Association
  • Chandler Chamber of Commerce
  • Commercial Real Estate Development Association, Arizona Chapter
  • Free Enterprise Club
  • Gilbert Chamber of Commerce
  • Goldwater Institute
  • Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce
  • Mesa Chamber of Commerce
  • National Federation of Independent Business
  • Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce
  • Southern Arizona Leadership Council
  • Tempe Chamber of Commerce
  • Tucson Metro Chamber


Arguments

  • Suzanne Kinney, CEO of the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, Arizona Chapter: "We believe a well-educated workforce is essential to the livelihood of Arizona. However, implementing a funding mechanism that singles out a small sliver of taxpayers will have a negative, long-lasting effect on small businesses. Reinforcing the economic recovery post-COVID-19, will benefit our public education systems in the long run."
  • Glenn Hamer, CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry: "The proponents of the initiative claim their plan will help teachers. It won’t. By tying teacher pay to highly volatile tax revenues, we would be placing their funding at tremendous risk. Teachers and staff would have no assurance that compensation from this source would be available year to year or business cycle to business cycle."
  • Chad Heinrich, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business: "Further, supporters of this measure claim to want a reliable source of revenue for school funding. That’s not what you will get if you vote for this proposition. This proposition seeks to impose a new top tax bracket. History proves that this source of revenue is the most unreliable. It is the first revenue source to decrease during any economic downturn."
  • Kim Sabow, CEO of the Arizona Lodging & Tourism Association: "It is common to hear stories of visitors moving to Arizona or investing in our state after experiencing our quality of life, business-friendly environment, and welcoming climate. That will change if the only state in our region with a higher top income tax rate is California."
  • Gov. Doug Ducey (R): "Right now, Arizona’s small businesses are recovering from the economic harm done by the COVID pandemic. And yet this tax increase would have small businesses – many of which pay based on personal tax rates – paying substantially more than Arizona’s largest corporations, which pay a lower corporate rate. How does that make sense? ... It doesn’t. This tax increase is estimated to cost taxpayers around $1 billion annually. That’s a whopping amount, especially considering that our economy is recovering from recession and high unemployment."


Campaign finance

The Invest in Education PAC was registered in support of the ballot initiative. The PAC received $22.9 million in contributions, including $9.8 million from Stand for Children, Inc.[13]

The Arizonans for Great Schools and a Strong Economy and No on 208 PACs were registered in opposition to the ballot initiative. The PACs received $8.3 million in contributions, including $640,000 from the SAC Holding Corp.[13]

Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Support $18,540,315.53 $4,368,667.06 $22,908,982.59 $18,455,546.28 $22,824,213.34
Oppose $8,339,100.11 $10,239.27 $8,349,339.38 $8,067,633.04 $8,077,872.31

Support

The contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot initiative were as follows:[13]

Committees in support of Proposition 208
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Invest in Education $18,540,315.53 $4,368,667.06 $22,908,982.59 $18,455,546.28 $22,824,213.34
Total $18,540,315.53 $4,368,667.06 $22,908,982.59 $18,455,546.28 $22,824,213.34

Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the committee:[13]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
Stand for Children, Inc. $5,500,000.00 $4,328,616.20 $9,828,616.20
National Education Association $7,812,000.00 $0.00 $7,812,000.00
Arizona Education Association $995,280.31 $2,510.78 $997,791.09
Open Society Policy Center $700,000.00 $0.00 $700,000.00
Stacy Schusterman $250,000.00 $0.00 $250,000.00

Opposition

The contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the ballot initiative were as follows:[13]

Committees in opposition to Proposition 208
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Arizonans for Great Schools and a Strong Economy $4,326,787.10 $92.00 $4,326,879.10 $4,084,878.88 $4,084,970.88
No on 208 $4,012,313.01 $10,147.27 $4,022,460.28 $3,982,754.16 $3,992,901.43
Total $8,339,100.11 $10,239.27 $8,349,339.38 $8,067,633.04 $8,077,872.31

Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the committee:[13]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
SAC Holding Corp. $640,000.00 $0.00 $640,000.00
Arizona Chamber of Commerce $350,000.00 $0.00 $350,000.00
J.R. Selby $250,000.00 $0.00 $250,000.00
Brad's Tank LLC $180,000.00 $0.00 $180,000.00
William Brady $160,000.00 $0.00 $160,000.00

Media editorials

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

  • Arizona Daily Star Editorial Board: "Prop. 208 would create a 3.5% income tax surcharge on those Arizona taxpayers — note that benchmark is for taxable income, what’s left after tax deductions have been taken. About 90,000 Arizonans make enough to qualify for the surcharge. And then, Arizonans making between $250,000 to $499,999 in taxable income would pay an average of $120 more per year. Opponents of Prop. 208 contend the surcharge will push the wealthy out of Arizona, a dubious argument when most of the people affected would pay a mere $10 more per month. ... We can’t keep expecting teachers and other educators, like school counselors, librarians and aides, to take a financial hit to teach our children."


Opposition

The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:

  • The Arizona Republic Editorial Board: "Nonetheless, the proposition is badly flawed. What amounts to a populist idea — taxing the rich was arrived at via poll testing — is not just a bad practice but a dangerous one. It increases the rancor and divide in our political decision-making by adding class warfare. We get that high earners can absorb the tax burden better than most. It's undoubtedly easier to rally support for schools by having someone else pay. But does that strike you as fair, when education is a public good and a responsibility we all bear?"


Polls

See also: 2020 ballot measure polls
Arizona Proposition 208, Tax on Incomes Exceeding $250,000 for Teacher Salaries and Schools Initiative (2020)
Poll Support OpposeUndecided/RefusedMargin of errorSample size
Monmouth University Poll
9/11/2020 - 9/15/2020		 66.0%25.0%8.0%+/-4.8420
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Arizona Proposition 207 (2018)

See also: Arizona Proposition 207, Tax on Incomes Exceeding $250,000 for Teacher Salaries and School Operations Initiative (2018)

In 2018, Invest in Education campaigned for a ballot initiative, titled Proposition 207. The Arizona Supreme Court removed Proposition 207 from the ballot on August 29, 2018, in a 5-2 opinion. Justices ruled that the petitions should have used the words percentage points, rather than the percent symbol to describe the tax increases, and stated that income tax brackets would no longer be adjusted for inflation.[15]

2019 income tax structure

As of 2019, Arizona had four tax brackets for the personal income tax. The following is an outline of the tax brackets for single filers and joint (married) filers:[16]

Personal income tax rates in Arizona, 2019 rates
Individual Joint
Amount Tax Amount Tax
$0 - $26,500 2.59% $0 - $53,000 2.59%
$26,501 - $53,000 3.34% $53,001 - $106,000 3.34%
$53,001 - $159,000 4.17% $106,001 - $318,000 4.17%
$159,001 and over 4.50% $318,001 and over 4.50%

Comparison of state income tax structures

As of 2019, 43 states levied a tax on personal income. Of these 43 states, 11 had a flat income tax rate. The flat rates ranged from 2.00 percent in Tennessee to 5.25 percent in North Carolina. The remaining 32 states had graduated tax structures, with various numbers of brackets and ranges. New Hampshire and Tennessee taxed personal income derived from interest and dividends but not wages and salaries.[17]

Comparison of average starting teacher salaries

For the 2018-2019 school year, the National Education Association reported that the average starting salary for a public school teacher was $40,154. Starting salaries ranged from $32,132 in Montana to $52,854 in New Jersey. In Arizona, the average starting salary for a public school teacher was $36,400. Of the 50 states, Arizona ranked 39 in terms of average starting salaries in 2018-2019.[18] In 2018, the governor signed a law to increase teacher salaries by 20 percent over three years beginning in 2018.[19]

Tax policies on the ballot in 2020

See also: Taxes on the ballot

In 2020, voters in 14 states voted on 21 ballot measures addressing tax-related policies. Ten of the measures addressed taxes on properties, three were related to income tax rates, two addressed tobacco taxes, one addressed business-related taxes, one addressed sales tax rates, one addressed fees and surcharges, and one was related to tax-increment financing (TIF).

Click Show to read details about the tax-related measures on statewide ballots in 2020.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Arizona

Process in Arizona

In Arizona, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated state statute is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast for the office of governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. Petitions can be circulated for up to 24 months. Signature petitions must be submitted four months prior to the election at which the measure is to appear.

The requirements to get initiated state statutes certified for the 2020 ballot:

If the secretary of state certifies that enough valid signatures were submitted, the initiative is put on the next general election ballot. The secretary of state verifies the signatures through a random sampling of 5 percent of submitted signatures working in collaboration with county recorders. If the random sampling indicates that valid signatures equal to between 95 percent and 105 percent of the required number were submitted, a full check of all signatures is required. If the random sampling shows fewer signatures, the petition fails. If the random sampling shows more, the initiative is certified for the ballot.

Stages of this initiative

The committee Invest in Education filed the ballot initiative on February 14, 2020.[7] On July 2, 2020, Invest in Education filed 387,422 signatures.[39] Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) said that 377,456 signatures were eligible for review. She sent a random sample of 18,873 petition signatures to local election offices for verification; 11,883 of the signatures needed to be valid.[40] On August 21, 2020, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) certified the ballot measure, stating that local officials found 13,636 (of 18,873) signatures to be valid.[41] Based on the validation rate (72.25%) of eligible signatures, Ballotpedia calculated that an estimated 253,046 signatures were valid. At least 237,645 signatures needed to be valid.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure received in-kind contributions from Stand for Children, Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $4,000,000.00 was spent to collect the 237,645 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $16.83.

Petitioning of Arizona Supreme Court

Covid vnt.png
Coronavirus pandemic
Select a topic from the dropdown below to learn more.


On April 2, 2020, four ballot initiative campaigns filed a petition asking the Arizona Supreme Court to allow the campaigns to gather signatures through E-Qual, which is the state's online signature collection platform, during the coronavirus pandemic. E-Qual is available for federal, statewide, and legislative candidates but not ballot initiatives.[42]

The legal petition stated, "The Novel Coronavirus 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic changed, quite literally, everything. ... Although this new reality is essential for public health, it is catastrophic to the Initiative Proponents’ exercise of their fundamental constitutional right. ... In short, signature gathering will halt, and the Initiative Proponents’ hard work and investment is in jeopardy. ... This Petition presents an important legal question of first impression: whether the fundamental constitutional rights of the Initiative Proponents are violated by their exclusion from an online petition signature gathering system maintained by the Secretary in the middle of a public health emergency that severely limits (or outright bars) their ability to otherwise collect initiative petition signatures."[42]

The four ballot initiative campaigns that filed the petition are:[42]

Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D), who was named as the defendant, said she would not oppose the challenge from the campaigns. She stated, "I think that in light of the circumstances that we’re in right now, it’s a reasonable request. We are certainly not opposing it and would hope for a quick resolution... I plan to let the court know that my office can implement the necessary changes, should that be the court’s order... Every voter in the state is eligible to sign an initiative petition. That makes it no different than candidates for statewide office using the system to get the necessary signatures to put their own names on the ballot."[43] Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) disagreed with the campaigns, stating, "A health crisis is not an excuse to ignore the constitution."[44]

On May 13, 2020, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled against the campaigns in a 6-1 decision.[45]

Molera v. Hobbs

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Was the 100-word petition language misleading? Did the payments made to petition circulators violate the state's ban on pay-per-signature?
Court: Arizona Supreme Court (Originated in the Maricopa County Superior Court)
Ruling: The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that (1) petition language "did not create a significant danger of confusion or unfairness" and (2) the compensation structure and incentives for petition circulators did not violate state law.

  Source: Arizona Supreme Court

Jaime Molera, chairperson of Arizonans for Great Schools and a Strong Economy (AGSSE), filed a lawsuit against the ballot initiative in the Maricopa County Superior Court. According to AGSSE, the 100-word petition language failed to describe how the ballot initiative changes income tax rates. Plaintiffs stated, "Yet by saying the initiative 'establishes a 3.5% surcharge' on this income, the summary gives signers the misimpression that the income is currently untaxed. ... A voter might be willing to tax their fellow citizens 3.5% but not 8%." Plaintiffs also argued that petitioners were paid according to the number of signatures gathered, which was illegal under Arizona's pay-per-signature ban.[46][47]

Joe Thomas, president of the Arizona Education Association, said the campaign anticipated that opponents would file a lawsuit. Thomas said, "We knew lawsuits were coming and we have full confidence in what the voters were supporting. It will be on the November ballot."[46]

On July 31, 2020, Judge Christopher Coury ruled that the 100-word petition language was misleading and enjoined Secretary of State Katie Hobbs from certifying the citizen-initiated measure for the ballot. Judge Coury said the petition did not contain sufficient explanations regarding the type, amount, and permanence of the proposed tax, how revenue would be allocated, and the types of businesses that would be affected. Judge Coury also stated that some petitioner payment practices violated the state's pay-per-signature ban.[48]

Thomas responded to the ruling, "Our state has more than 1.1 million K-12 students that Judge Coury let down today with his judicial activism – and that’s shameful. ... Instead of respecting the voters, Judge Coury inserted his own political views throughout his baseless ruling. We will appeal immediately." The case was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.[49]

On August 19, 2020, the Arizona Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, stated that the 100-word petition language "did not create a significant danger of confusion or unfairness."[50] The state Supreme Court also found that the compensation structure and incentives for petition circulators did not violate state law.[51]

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Arizona

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Arizona.

See also

External links

Information

Support

Opposition

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Goldwater Institute, "Fann et al. v. Yee, November 30, 2020
  2. ↑ AZ Family, "Judge refuses to block Arizona's new education tax," February 10, 2021
  3. ↑ AZCentral, "Judge upholds most major provisions of Proposition 208 education tax; Arizona Supreme Court yet to rule," June 15, 2021
  4. ↑ Yahoo News, "Arizona Supreme Court upholds Prop. 208, won’t allow it to break spending limit," August 21, 2021
  5. ↑ Court House News, "Fann v. Yee ruling," March 11, 2022
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 AZ Central, "Judge deals fatal blow to Arizona's Proposition 208, ending 2-year battle over K-12 funding," March 11, 2022
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Arizona Secretary of State, "Initiative 31-2020," February 14, 2020
  8. ↑ NOLO, "What is Arizona's Business Income Tax?" accessed October 13, 2020
  9. ↑ Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, "Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry files committee to oppose income tax hike on small businesses," May 9, 2018
  10. ↑ Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, "Propositions," accessed September 28, 2020
  11. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  12. ↑ Invest in Education, "Home," accessed July 2, 2020
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 Arizona Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance," accessed February 19, 2020
  14. ↑ No on Prop 208, "Who's With Us," accessed October 13, 2020
  15. ↑ Arizona Supreme Court, "Molera v. Reagan," October 26, 2018
  16. ↑ Arizona Department of Revenue, "Updated Guidance for Arizona Individual Income Taxpayers," accessed July 6, 2020
  17. ↑ Tax Foundation, "State Individual Income Tax Rates and Brackets for 2019," March 20, 2019
  18. ↑ National Education Association, "NEA 2018-2019 Teacher Salary Benchmark Report," May 11, 2020
  19. ↑ Arizona Governor, "Governor Ducey Signs 20 Percent Increase In Teacher Pay," May 3, 2020
  20. ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "Initiative 31-2020," February 14, 2020
  21. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "2019-2020 Initiative Filings, Agendas & Results," accessed April 17, 2020
  22. ↑ Illinois State Legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 1," accessed May 2, 2019
  23. ↑ Illinois State Board of Elections,"Committee Search," accessed May 28, 2019
  24. ↑ Alaska Division of Elections, "Alaska's Fair Share Act," accessed January 13, 2020
  25. ↑ Anchorage Daily News, "Group says it has enough signatures to put Alaska oil tax initiative on ballot," January 14, 2020
  26. ↑ APOC, "Online Reports," accessed January 7, 2020
  27. ↑ Nebraska Secretary of State, "Initiative Petition text," accessed August 22, 2019
  28. ↑ California Attorney General, "Initiative 19-0008," September 17, 2019
  29. ↑ California the Legislative Analyst's Office, "A.G. File No. 2019-0008," February 5, 2018
  30. ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Concurrent Resolution 11," accessed May 8, 2019
  31. ↑ Colorado General Assembly, "SCR 20-001," accessed June 10, 2020
  32. ↑ Arkansas State Legislature, "House Joint Resolution 1018," accessed March 7, 2019
  33. ↑ UA Little Rock Public Radio, "Arkansas Governor Signs $95 Million Highway Funding Bill Into Law," accessed March 25, 2019
  34. ↑ Arkansas Ethics Commission, "Filings," accessed August 18, 2020
  35. ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "House Bill 20-1427," accessed June 15, 2020
  36. ↑ Oregon State Legislature, "HB 2270," accessed June 25, 2019
  37. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "2019-2020 Initiative Filings, Agendas & Results," accessed February 10, 2020
  38. ↑ Nebraska State Legislature, "LR14CA," accessed April 5, 2019
  39. ↑ Facebook, "Invest in Education," accessed July 2, 2020
  40. ↑ Twitter, "Secretary Katie Hobbs," July 31, 2020
  41. ↑ Twitter, "Secretary Katie Hobbs," August 21, 2020
  42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 42.2 Arizona Supreme Court, "Arizonans for Second Chances, Rehabilitation, and Public Safety et al. v. Hobbs," April 2, 2020
  43. ↑ Arizona Capitol Times, "Hobbs won’t contest legal challenge to put initiative signature gathering online," April 6, 2020
  44. ↑ AZCentral, "Arizona Supreme Court rejects bid by groups to gather initiative petition signatures online," May 13, 2020
  45. ↑ Arizona Supreme Court, "Order," May 13, 2020
  46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 Mohave Daily News, "Foes of initiative to raise taxes on wealth file lawsuit," July 11, 2020
  47. ↑ KJZZ, "Business Groups Claim Arizona Ballot Measure Will Increase Taxes By 80%," July 12, 2020
  48. ↑ Maricopa County Superior Court, "Molera v. Hobbs," July 31, 2020
  49. ↑ Phoenix News Times, "Education Initiative Ruling Could Doom Future Ballot Measures, Critics Argue," August 6, 2020
  50. ↑ AZ Mirror, "Arizona Supreme Court says Invest in Ed will be on November’s ballot," August 19, 2020
  51. ↑ Arizona Supreme Court, "Molera v. Hobbs," August 19, 2020
  52. ↑ Arizona Revised Statutes, "Title 16, Section 565," accessed March 14, 2023
  53. ↑ Arizona generally observes Mountain Standard Time; however, the Navajo Nation observes daylight saving time. Because of this, Mountain Daylight Time is sometimes observed in Arizona.
  54. ↑ 54.0 54.1 Arizona Secretary of State, "Registration Requirements," accessed March 14, 2023
  55. ↑ Arizona Legislature, "HB2492," accessed March 14, 2023
  56. ↑ ArizonaElections.gov, "What ID Do I Need to Vote Quiz," accessed March 14, 2023
  57. ↑ FindLaw.com, "Arizona Revised Statutes Title 16. Elections and Electors § 16-579. Procedure for obtaining ballot by elector," accessed March 14, 2023
v • e
2020 ballot measures
I&R States
 • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming
Non I&R States
 • Alabama • Georgia • Iowa • Kentucky • Louisiana • New Jersey • Rhode Island • Virginia • Wisconsin
Political topics
Other
Flag of Arizona
v • e
State of Arizona
Phoenix (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Arizona_Proposition_208,_Tax_on_Incomes_Exceeding_$250,000_for_Teacher_Salaries_and_Schools_Initiative_(2020)&oldid=9129711"