The House Transportation Committee approved SB1356, legislation to give Maricopa County residents a vote for or against a transportation tax and excise tax plan. The committee passed with bipartisan support, with the exception of three: State Representatives Neal Carter (R-Queen Creek), Kevin Payne (R-Peoria), and Leo Biasucci (R-Lake Havasu City).Two didn’t vote either way: State Representatives Brenda Barton (R-Payson) and David Cook (R-Globe).
Arizona Free Enterprise Club Vice President Aimee Yentes expressed opposition to the bill, noting that 40 percent of the money was allocated for public transit. Yentes explained that the 1985 transportation tax plan was successful because it built freeways, but that over the decades the plan shifted from essential infrastructure like roads and freeways to “transit,” despite a steep, increasing decline in its use. That number sits at half a percent currently.
“As we’ve seen post-COVID, that ridership number has fallen off a cliff. There are actually more people who don’t own a vehicle that take a car to work than actually use public transit. That’s kind of astonishing,” said Yentes.
Yentes also noted that the bill sets aside funding for something already covered by statute: “regional programs.” She said the definition of that term was problematic because it doesn’t distinguish street intersection improvements but, rather, “arterial roads and regional programs.”
“It really is a catch-all that can be used to siphon off local city slush funds for whatever: complete streets, air quality,” said Yentes.
The bill sponsor, State Senator Tyler Pace (R-Mesa) said that the bill’s rejection, either by the legislature or by Maricopa County voters, would necessitate the Arizona legislature to find the funds for transportation projects themselves. Pace insisted that the committee members shouldn’t nitpick at the provisions of the bill because the greater good concerned Arizona’s legacy of quiet, fast roads superior to those of other states.
State Representative Richard Andrade (D-Glendale) compared SB1356 to previous efforts to expand and extend the state’s two major highways: Loop 101 and the I-17. Andrade argued that creating more public transit like light rails would increase their use.
Those in opposition explained that they weren’t confident this bill would actually meet transportation needs. Carter said that he supported infrastructure, but said that the legislation had room for improvement. Carter said his reservations included provisions for expenditures related to air quality, and the expansion beyond a 20-year authorization.
Payne expressed displeasure that legislators impacted by the bill weren’t included in stakeholder meetings. He explained that his constituents were requesting another bus route down Bell Road, for example, and that he couldn’t vote for the bill in good conscience because of that.
Echoing Carter and Payne’s statements in his “no” vote was Biasucci. Biasucci argued that the legislature should utilize its $4 billion in surplus instead of passing the costs on to taxpayers.
“I think this is, really, how it needs to be done: the money should come from the general fund to be spent on major projects, I’m talking billions of dollars’ worth, in my opinion. For me, when we’re sitting on this huge surplus, it’s hard for me to say, ‘Yes, I agree with a tax increase or an extension,’” said Biasucci.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
State Representative Jake Hoffman’s (R-Queen Creek) controversial proof of citizenship for voting bill passed the Senate on Wednesday along party lines. HB2492 now heads to the governor for final approval. The legislation requires that individuals provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in the state, and further requires election officials to confirm with all available government databases that the applicant is an American citizen.
The bill advanced steadily through both the House and the Senate, moving out of Senate committee less than two weeks ago, shortly after it was passed by the entire House a few weeks before that. The legislation didn’t advance without pushback, however. Community activists attempted to stall the bill during its consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, forcing a recess with their antics such as shouting down the legislators and shouting, “Shame!” repeatedly after the bill passed.
In a statement to AZ Free News, Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi was hopeful that Governor Doug Ducey would sign the bill. Mussi applauded the legislature for passing a bill that aligned with the state and federal constitution, forecasting that the bill would prevent bad actors from interfering with elections.
Senate Democrats had a different perspective of the bill: they claimed that the legislation would force numerous Arizonans to register to vote again. They also claimed that the bill violated federal election law.
On the floor today is #HB2492, which would force millions of Arizonans to re-register to vote and blatantly violates federal law. The legislature’s own attorneys said as much. pic.twitter.com/YAybkBI8Fz
— Arizona Senate Democrats (@AZSenateDems) March 23, 2022
In regard to the constitutionality claim, Arizona Free Enterprise Club Deputy Director Greg Blackie explained during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the 2013 Supreme Court ruling determined that the National Voter Registration Act didn’t stop states from denying an applicant’s registration based on information that proved the applicant’s ineligibility. Under this bill, that would mean proof that an applicant isn’t a citizen.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Several Arizona legislators along with the Free Enterprise Club and the Goldwater Institute are celebrating a major court victory for Arizona taxpayers after a Maricopa County Superior Court judge struck down the largest tax hike in state history on Friday.
Today, @maricopacounty Superior Court Judge John Hannah ruled against Prop 208, determining that the $$ raised from the tax would exceed the constitutional spending limit for education.
Judge John Hannah’s ruling bars enforcement of Proposition 208, which imposed a significant income tax surcharge on small-business owners and individuals making over $250,000 a year. Prop 208, also called the Invest in Education Act, was narrowly passed by voters in November 2020 and was immediately challenged in court on multiple grounds, including a conflict with Arizona’s Constitution.
Governor Doug Ducey called Hannah’s ruling “a win for Arizona taxpayers,” adding that it is marks “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.”
The Goldwater Institute-sponsored lawsuit was filed in February 2021 on behalf of numerous taxpayers, small business owners, and legislators. Last summer, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that the surcharge taxes from Prop 208 were considered “local revenues” subject to spending limits under the state’s Constitution. The Justices sent the case back Hannah for a determination of whether Prop 208’s Local Revenues Provision runs afoul of the Constitution’s Education Expenditure Clause by violating that limitation. In a decision today, the judge agreed that Proposition 208 violated the Constitution.
“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,” Hannah wrote in his ruling. “On that basis, the Court is obligated to strike down Proposition 208.”
Reaction to the ruling came swiftly, despite a possibility the Justices may be asked by the losing parties to review Hannah’s order later this year.
“While we expect the ruling may be appealed, we are confident the Arizona Supreme Court will find 208 unconstitutional, as they did last year. Arizona is – and will remain – a state that knows how to prioritize education while keeping taxes low and attracting jobs,” Gov. Ducey said.
Senate President Karen Fann, one of the plaintiffs, called Friday’s ruling “a major victory” against an initiative she said misled voters by trying to get the tax-and-spend hike around the Constitution.
“Out-of-state special interests tried to deceive our voters,” Fann said after Hannah released his ruling. “We are thrilled that this job-killing tax hike won’t go into effect.”
Many attributed the success of the lawsuit to the work of the Goldwater Institute which pointed out concerns with Prop 208’s constitutionality well before Election Day in 2020.
“Today’s decision puts a nail in the coffin of the unconstitutional, job-killing Proposition 208, and it cements Arizona’s position as the national leader in lower taxes and building a stronger economy,” said Victor Riches, President and CEO of the Goldwater Institute.
Last week, the Secretary of State’s office received the “Arizonans for Voter ID Act:” a ballot initiative to strengthen ID requirements for in-person and mail-in voting through universal voter ID. The initiative will require ID for mail-in ballots, but will also provide a free voter ID to those registered voters who need it. Voters would also be required to give certain information: their date of birth, as well as either the last four digits of their Social Security Number, driver’s license number, or nonoperating state identification number.
Proponents of the Arizonans for Voter ID Act assert that its voter ID requirement will also deter ballot harvesting. The political committee that filed the ballot initiative, Arizonans for Voter ID, was joined in their efforts by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Heritage Action, Honest Elections Project Action, Foundation for Government Accountability, the Goldwater Institute, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Arizona, AMAC Action, and Arizona Women of Action.
As required by law to qualify for the 2022 November ballot, the Arizonans for Voter ID Act acquired at least 237,645 signatures by July 7.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi asserted that most Arizonans and all other American citizens support strong voter ID.
“This initiative will ensure that no matter when you vote, where you vote, or how you vote, identification will be required,” said Mussi.
The polls support this claim. Over 60 percent of Arizona voters support voter ID. Nationally, around 80 percent of Americans support voter ID.
In July, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito ruled that Arizona law makes it “quite easy” for individuals to vote. The court case, Brnovich, et al. v. Democratic National Committee, et al., outlined the provisions of Arizona voting law that ease the burden for voters. Alito noted that this included in-person voting on Election Day, 27 days of early in-person voting, and only one application required for mail-in voting which could be extended perpetually through the Active Early Voting List as long as voters vote once within two straight two-year election cycles (rebranded from “Permanent Early Voting List,” or PEVL, through legislation passed earlier this year limiting the system’s perpetuity).
ID plays a role in many mainstream societal transactions, as Arizonans for Voter ID Committee Chair Vicki Vaughn argued.
“Arizonans show identification all the time in their daily lives to purchase alcohol, receive unemployment benefits, make major transactions, and board a plane, among others,” stated Vaughn. “Requiring identification before casting a ballot is necessary for our elections.”
A photo ID or another valid, government-issued ID is also required for the following: obtaining a driver’s license, receiving certain in-patient or out-patient doctor or hospital treatments, receiving certain over-the-counter or prescription medicines, buying guns or ammunition, visiting schools or jails, filing court documents, adopting a child, engaging in parole or probation, receiving auto insurance, donating blood, cashing or paying with checks, pawning items, responding to a traffic stop, obtaining a passport, picking up packages at the post office, buying cigarettes, opening a bank account, renting or buying a house, applying for a mortgage, adopting a pet, renting a hotel room, applying for a hunting or fishing license, establishing a utilities account, and applying for a job.
Learn more about the Arizonans for Voter ID Act here.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
It needed to be done. At the end of June, Governor Ducey signed HB2898, which included a provision prohibiting a city, town, county, school board, or charter school governing body from requiring students or teachers to wear masks.
Bear in mind that this law doesn’t mean students and teachers can’t wear masks. They certainly can if they want to. But it keeps the heavy hand of government from enforcing unnecessary restrictions—especially on students who should be focused on learning.
Predictably, the liberal left has had a meltdown. The board president at Northland Preparatory Academy in Flagstaff went on a tirade in a now-removed Facebook post, referring to parents and students who disagree with mask mandates as “the worst of humanity.”
And some schools have decided that their first lesson for the year is to teach kids it’s ok to violate the law. A growing number of Arizona school districts are openly defying Governor Ducey by requiring students and staff to wear masks if they want to set foot on campus.
Our children have become pawns in a game of COVID chess—all at the mercy of the kings and queens on school boards throughout the state.
While parents are speaking up, they need help. Thankfully, Arizona’s House and Senate Republicans heard their cries. Last week, a group led by state representative Jake Hoffman called for Governor Ducey to do something…
