Education advocates put a measure on the ballot in Arizona to raise taxes on the highest-income taxpayers to increase education funding. Voters passed the measure. But a judge struck it down because it exceeded the state constitution’s limit on taxation. This report comes from the Center on Educational Equity at Teachers College, Columbia University.
AZ JUDGE INVALIDATES PROPOSITION THAT WOULD HAVE BOOSTED FUNDING FOR EDUCATION
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah has ended the nearly two-year controversy swirling around the constitutionality of Proposition 208, a measure recently adopted by the voters, by ruling last month that the measure is invalid. The Proposition would have boosted the income-tax rate for high income earners by 3.5%, with the money directed primarily to salary increases for teachers and school support personnel. But the judge ruled last month in Fann v. State, that the money the Proposition would raise would exceed the amount permitted by the state’s constitutional spending limit.
The Arizona Supreme Court had indicated that allocation of funds for education under Prop. 208 would likely contravene the Education Expenditure Clause of the state constitution, a constitutional cap that was adopted in 1980. The case had been remanded to the trial court to calculate whether, as most observers anticipated, the amount raised by the proposition would, in fact, exceed the cap.
Disappointing, to say the least. But judge John Hannah did make a good ruling in another area of law. Quote: The Arizona Republican Party and its attorneys owe Secretary of State Katie Hobbs more than $18,000 in attorney fees for filing what a judge deemed a groundless lawsuit brought in bad faith, without legal justification and possibly for the purpose of undermining the legitimacy of the 2020 general election. [snip]
In a blistering 10-page order issued Monday morning, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah dismantled the legal arguments that the AZGOP and its attorneys made in November after they challenged the procedures that Maricopa County used for a partial hand count of ballots required by state law after each election. [snip]
“Arizona law gives political parties a privileged position in the electoral process on which our self-government depends. The public has a right to expect the Arizona Republican Party to conduct itself respectfully when it participates in that process. It has failed to do so in this case,” Hannah wrote. end quote https://www.azmirror.com/2021/03/15/judge-orders-azgop-and-its-attorneys-to-pay-secretary-of-states-legal-fees/
Judge Hannah was elected to his position and he ran as “non-partisan.” In my opinion, judges running for their judgeships is a bad idea, they are subject to being bribed by big money and deep pocket special interests. There is no ideal way of getting judges on the bench but being appointed by one political party or the other is slightly better than having judges running for the office via elections. IMHO
key point: who pays for the campaign
The way I read this: AZ has a 42-yo law capping the amount its citizens can be taxed for public education.
Here’s an analysis on how the rich-poor gap changed in AZ between the late ’70s– just before this law was passed– and the late ’90’s, 20 yrs later: poorest 1/5th: -26%, middle 1/5th: -10%, richest 1/5th: +31%. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/archive/1-18-00sfp-az.pdf
Gee I wonder if that gap has been narrowed– or widened– in the last 20 yrs. [….]
Sounds like that’s a state that needs a fair-funding formula for per-pupil spending.
Az has a 5 billion. Yes billion surplus..
https://patch.com/arizona/across-az/arizona-budget-surplus-grows-5-3-billion