On Thursday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 208 (Prop 208), the voter-approved increase on income taxes to fund public education, was unconstitutional and remanded to lower court. If that trial court determines that Prop 208 exceeds the constitutional spending limit, then Prop 208 would be killed. Chief Justice Brutinel authored the opinion.
The case, Fann, et al. v. State of Arizona, et al., challenged one major provision of Prop 208 and the circumstances of its approval.
First, the case questioned how Prop 208 exempted itself from the Arizona Constitution’s provisions on tax revenue spending caps, or the Education Expenditure Clause.
Brutinel ruled this aspect of Prop 208 unconstitutional. The chief justice made sure to note that this ruling rendered the other aspects of Prop 208 unworkable and unseverable. Meaning, no part of Prop 208 is enforceable if the trial court concurs with the Arizona Supreme Court’s opinion.
“We hold that the direct funding provision does not fall within the constitutional definition of grants in article 9, section 21 of the Arizona Constitution, and Prop. 208 is therefore unconstitutional to the extent it mandates expending tax revenues in violation of the Education Expenditure Clause,” wrote Brutinel. “Likewise, the remaining non-revenue related provisions of Prop. 208 are not separately workable and thus not severable.”
Second, the case challenged tax impositions made by voter initiative. The plaintiffs cited the Arizona Constitution’s Tax Enactment Clause, which stipulates that tax changes must be approved through a two-thirds vote by the state legislature.
The court disagreed with this assessment.
“Additionally, we hold that Prop. 208 does not violate article 9, section 22 of the Arizona Constitution (‘Tax Enactment Clause’), because that clause does not apply to voter initiatives,” wrote Brutinel. “Therefore, the bicameralism, presentment, and supermajority requirements found therein are inapplicable to Prop. 208.”
The Goldwater Institute, Snell & Wilmer, and Greenberg Traurig filed the lawsuit on behalf of the 11 plaintiffs: State Senate President Karen Fann (R-Prescott); State Senators David Gowan (R-Sierra Vista) and Vince Leach (R-Tucson); Arizona House Speaker Russell Bowers (R-Mesa); State Representatives Regina Cobb (R-Kingman), John Kavanaugh (R-Fountain Hills), Steve Pierce (R-Prescott); Montie Lee of Lee Farms; Dr. Francis Surdakowski; NO on 208; and Arizona Free Enterprise Club.
In a statement, Goldwater Institute Vice President for Litigation Timothy Sandefur classified the ruling as a win.
“Today represents a major victory for the hardworking taxpayers of Arizona,” said Sandefur. “The justices made clear that the state constitution’s limits on spending—which were added to the Constitution by the voters themselves—cannot be simply ignored, as Prop. 208’s funders attempted.”
Governor Doug Ducey concurred that this ruling signaled that the end was near for Prop 208.
“There is a clear legal path to Prop 208 being knocked down entirely, it’s only a matter of time,” tweeted Ducey. “The out-of-state proponents of this measure drafted bad language, and now they are paying the price.”
Proposition 208 (Prop 208) tacked on 3.5 percent to the existing 4.5 percent income tax for individuals making over $250,000 or couples making over $500,000. Previously, Arizona’s income tax rate was capped at 4.5 percent for individual incomes above $159,000 or joint incomes above $318,000. The revenue from the income tax increase would fund a wide variety of educator salaries and programs.
About 52 percent of Arizonans voted in favor of Prop 208 last November, and about 48 percent voted against it.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Several Arizonans, Republican state lawmakers, and organizations are joining forces to secure enough signatures so voters can decide during the November 2022 General Election whether to strengthen existing voter ID requirements.
Arizonans for Voter ID is a political committee sponsoring the ballot initiative which seeks to revise existing voter ID laws for in-person voting and vote-by-mail ballots, as well as individuals who return another voter’s ballot.
Paperwork for the “Arizonans for Voter ID Act” initiative was filed Monday with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office by committee chair Vicki Vaughn and Bill Luhrs, committee treasurer.
House Majority Leader Ben Toma (R-LD22) will join other lawmakers, including Senators Warren Petersen (R-LD12) and J.D. Mesnard (R-LD17), for a press conference Tuesday at 1:45 p.m. on the Senate lawn to formally launch the initiative effort.
“The vast majority of Arizona voters support voter ID because it is a common-sense and critical election integrity practice that is increasingly implemented around the country,” according to Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “This initiative will ensure that no matter when you vote, where you vote, or how you vote, identification will be required.”
In addition to Arizona Free Enterprise Club, other coalition members include The Goldwater Institute, Heritage Action for America, Republican Liberty Caucus of Arizona, Foundation for Government Accountability, Arizona Women of Action, AMAC Action, and the Honest Elections Project Action.
“Election experts have always recognized voting by mail as the voting method most susceptible to error and fraud,” said Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project Action. “Adding objective identification requirements to Arizona’s mail-in ballots builds voter confidence in elections by ensuring only legal votes are accepted and counted.”
Under the Act, voters who receive their ballot by mail would still sign the voter affidavit section, but would also include their date of birth, In addition, the voter would need to include the last four digits of their social security number, Arizona driver’s license number, or state identification card.
“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. Requiring identification before casting a ballot is necessary for our elections,” Vaughn said in announcing that the process got underway Monday.
Those interested in more information about the initiative can contact info@azvoterid.com.
It turns out that Arizona Democrats like welfare for the wealthy after all. After spending weeks railing against a historic $1.8 billion, across the board tax cut that will benefit all Arizona taxpayers and small businesses, Democrats in the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted in favor of SB1124, legislation that (as Senator Javan Mesnard described during his vote explanation) is the definition of welfare for the wealthy.
SB 1124 was the ultimate special interest tax package, so loathsome that it was snuck through the last week of session to avoid the stench of lobbyist backscratching. In reality it was the only way they could put taxpayers on the hook for over $200 million to fund an absurd Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and Angel Investor Tax Credit program that will do nothing but line the pockets of wealthy Developers and Venture Capitalists.
But this didn’t seem to bother most Democrats, who on one hand refer to broad based tax cuts as “racist,” but are perfectly fine doling out tax carveouts and subsidies to their wealthy allies.
So now we are stuck with a Venture Capital Program that is government picking winners and losers at its worst. The Angel Investor tax credit shields “qualified investors” (i.e. rich people with political friends) from risk by giving them tax credits for their investments. And the icing on the cake—any profits from these taxpayer backed investments are exempt from capital gains taxes. This is welfare for the wealthy—and Democrats happily passed it with the help of a few Republicans…
After raking in cash from taxpayers amounting to a staggering $4 billion surplus, Governor Ducey and Republican legislators have delivered big with a historic tax cut this year. At full implementation, the cuts enshrined in SB1827, SB1828, and SB1783 will total $1.8 billion, and this couldn’t have come at a better time.
While Arizona families and small businesses were struggling during covid shutdowns and trying to make ends meet, the tax collector was still busy collecting. And as all Arizonans were already being overtaxed, on the narrowest margin, Proposition 208 was passed threatening a 77% tax hike on many Arizonans and small businesses. The tax cuts in this year’s budget completely neutralize that threat.
The tax cut package will result in a tax cut for all Arizona taxpayers. At full implementation, the current four rates of 2.59%, 3.34%, 4.17%, and 4.5% (with a fifth Prop 208 rate of 8%) will be collapsed into one single rate of 2.5%.
But since Proposition 208 is voter protected, income above $250,000 ($500,000 for married filing jointly) would still be hit with the 3.5% “surcharge,” resulting in a top rate of 6%, leaving Arizona still uncompetitive. The tax cut package takes care of this, too, by capping the top rate any taxpayer will shoulder at 4.5%, or the current top marginal rate.
Finally, holding the Red4Ed Prop 208 proponents to the promise that their tax hike “legally” could not affect small businesses, SB1783 will create an optional alternative small business tax which will have a rate beginning at 3.5% this year, ratcheting down to match the new single individual income rate of 2.5%. This means that small businesses can bifurcate their business income from their personal income, filing it under the alternative small business tax and paying a rate of 2.5% instead of the capped 4.5% rate. To reiterate, this is small business income that by Prop 208 advocates own words was never supposed to be subject to the surcharge. SB1783 codifies that intent…
“15 days to slow the spread.” Do you remember that? It was all the rage in the media in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. You’d hear it on news broadcasts. You’d see it in commercials. And you’d read it as you scrolled through the various social media platforms.
But it didn’t take long before those calls to “slow the spread,” became calls to “cancel everything.” And too many government leaders across the country bought into it by instituting huge lockdowns and other draconian measures.
Certainly, COVID was an issue that warranted some action, but it never should have included crushing small businesses or trampling on the rights of the people.
And yet, here we are more than a year later. The states with the most severe COVID restrictions are experiencing much slower economic recovery than those that fully reopened.
Blue states are struggling
California still has not reopened, despite being the first state to lockdown back in March 2020. Finally, after months of inconsistencies, confusing decisions, and hypocrisy from leaders like Governor Newsom, the state appears to be poised to fully reopen by mid-June.
Not surprisingly, there’s been a mass exodus from the state, causing it to lose a seat in the House of Representatives. And those that have remained are so fed up that they are trying to recall their governor.
