Supporters of education had hoped to get a referendum on the ballot to raise taxes on high earners to generate a guaranteed revenue stream of funding for the schools.
But the Arizona Supreme Court kicked the measure off the ballot.
PHOENIX — Arizonans will not get a chance to decide whether to hike taxes on the rich to generate more money for education.
In a brief order Wednesday, the Arizona Supreme Court said petition signers were not informed that the measure would do more than increase the tax rate on those earning more than $250,000 a year. It also would eliminate the indexing of income tax brackets to account for inflation.
Chief Justice Scott Bales, writing for the court, said a majority concluded that omission “creates a significant danger of confusion or unfairness.”
The ruling is a significant setback for the education community, and not just because it means there will not be a dedicated revenue stream for public education. There were hopes that having this measure on the ballot, coupled with a referendum already on the ballot over expansion of vouchers, would bring out voters who also would support candidates willing to put more money into public schools.
There was no immediate comment from supporters of the Invest in Ed initiative, including the Arizona Education Association.
Wednesday’s ruling is a victory for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry which led and financed the legal fight to block a public vote.
Organization president Glenn Hamer argued that hiking income taxes on the wealthiest Arizonans “would just create a drag on the state’s overall economy.” And he said that if the state targets the rich, many would just choose to move elsewhere.
That question is now academic.
There is no dispute that the main provision of the measure would have imposed an 8 percent state income tax on earnings of more than $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for couples. That compares with the current 4.54 percent rate.
And there would be a 9 percent tax rate on anything over $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for married couples filing jointly.
Proponents estimated that the additional revenues would generate about $690 million a year for public education.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Those who want to destroy & dismantle public education are being successful in Arizona. The Supreme Court is stacked with right wing appointees. Governor Ducey is fully on board with the Goldwater Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, vouchers for all students & charters for anyone who applies. The Legislature, controlled by Republicans and many charter owners, has defunded public schools by 86% since 2008, while increasing funding for charters 11%. Governor Ducey put together a plan for 20% increase to salaries by 2020. This wouldn’t get us out of national last place funding. And, in fact, isn’t really 20%, more like 8% We need teachers, many classrooms do not have qualified, full time teachers.
We are working hard to put in public education friendly candidates for office. When we went to the Legislature last Saturday to protest the wording of the initiative on the voter summary, we apparently were just “spitting in the wind.” They already knew what they were going to do. They already decided to dump the whole thing. The whole thing is rigged!
LikeLike
Isn’t it odd how the hundreds of paid ed reform lobbyists never lend a hand with these school funding efforts?
It’s a shame the only effort to benefit public school students in Arizona this year won’t even be on the ballot.
We have this giant billionaire funded ed reform lobby- tens of thousands of adults who are supposedly employed in “public education advocacy” – why don’t they ever do anything that benefits kids in actual, existing public schools?
Maybe they’re just lousy advocates.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
LikeLike
Now this is SICK.
LikeLike
The people of Arizona will never get true representation as long as the Koch brothers dictate policy and have their thumb on the scale of justice. There is no evidence that indicates taxing the rich harms the economy. 1950’s with high taxes on the wealthy produced a healthy economy that benefited all. The right wing 1% wants to starve the government so it cannot regulate or oppose unfettered capitalism. They do not care about the common good, especially public educators that will teach citizens to think and question. They want compliant drones that they can brain wash, control and exploit.
LikeLike
Run it again. This time, triple the tax increase on the rich!
LikeLike
Fortunately the hard fought referendum on universal school vouchers (aka private school coupons for the wealthy) Prop 305 is still on the ballot. We need Arizonans to vote no to prevent more funding from getting siphoned out of our public schools.
LikeLike
Remember in November, AZians!
LikeLike
The people of Arizona still have the option to request a tax increase through their legislative process. I am personally opposed to referenda. They are mob rule. With only 50% of eligible voters even bothering to show up at the polls, a referendum can pass with 50.1 % of the 50%. This results in government by 25% of the citizenry. A bad way to govern.
Government, especially tax and revenue policy, should be taken carefully, and with careful deliberation.
“The crowd, like a woman, is fickle” – unknown.
LikeLike
A referendum is part of democracy. It is not mob rule.
Legislatures are easily bought by crooks.
LikeLike
Our nation is a constitutional republic, and not a democracy. If referenda are so terrific, why is there no provision for referenda in the federal constitution? The framers were terrified of mob rule.
I must say that I am appalled at some of the cynicism that I encounter here. Not all of our legislators are whores. I may be naïve, but I believe that the vast majority of our political servants, are honest men and women.
Unless we get public financing of our political campaigns, politicians will have to grovel for money.
LikeLike
Charles,
Referenda are not illegal. Buying legislators and governors is illegal but it happens all the time. The NRA bought Trump with a multimillion dollar gift.
LikeLike
There was a similar ballot question headed to the voters here in Massachusetts, called the FairShare amendment. It was also known as the Millionaires Tax because it would have taxed those earning more than $1 million at a rate of 4% on income above the first million.
Here’s a summary: https://www.raiseupma.org/campaigns/fair-share-amendment/
It was struck down on a technicality as illegal for conflating two separate issues – public schools and public transportation – because the money raised by the proposal would have provided a dedicated revenue stream to those two areas.
https://valleyadvocate.com/2018/06/19/massachusetts-high-court-quashes-democracy-in-decision-on-fair-share-amendment/
Lesson for MA voters – Republican governors nominate Republican judges.
LikeLike