Judge Upholds Prop. 208 — Kicking Anti-School Reactionaries in the Teeth

In a withering ruling, a state judge blasted anti-school reactionaries and allowed Prop. 208 to take effect to provide up to $940 million to school districts, teachers, and support personnel.

Republican legislators and corporate interests have been fighting to override the voters who approved Prop. 208, known as Invest in Ed, in November 2020. Their lawsuit asked the court to block Prop. 208 with an injunction, and Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah Jr. refused.

He poured acid on the arguments of their Trump lawyer Brett Johnson and these anti-school right-wingers:

• Karen Fann, Republican state senator for LD 1.
• Russell Bowers, Republican state representative for LD 25.
• David Gowan, Republican state senator for LD 14.
• Vince Leach, Republican state senator for LD 11
• Regina Cobb, Republican state representative for LD 5.
• John Kavanaugh, Republican state senator for LD 23.
• Montie Lee of Lee Farms of Yuma
• Steve Pierce, Republican state representative for LD 1.
• Francis Surdakowski, a Phoenix cardiologist.
• No On 208, headed by Jaime Molera, former state superintendent for public instruction.
• Arizona Free Enterprise Club, headed by Scot Mussi, President & Executive Director

And all the pointless litigation was to save the state’s richest people – only 4% of Arizonans — from paying an average tax increase of $120 for those making between $250,000 and $499,999, according to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.

The anti-school agitators had three losing arguments, all of which the judge shot down:

1. Voters cannot enact a tax without a two-thirds majority. (Of course they can.)
2. Voters violated constitutional spending limits on education. (Wrong: Prop. 208 funds rely on an exception that applies to “grants.”)
3. Voters didn’t identify which existing source the increased school revenue would come from. (Wrong: there is no such requirement.)

The judge kicked the Republicans in the teeth at least 17 times:

“The plaintiffs’ interpretation of Article IX, Section 22 has very little chance of success on the merits.”

“In sum, the plaintiffs’ argument that Proposition 208 did not validly enact the income tax surcharge is too weak even to raise “serious questions” that might justify preliminary relief.”

“The plaintiffs’ arguments are unpersuasive.”

“The income tax surcharge will not cause “irreparable harm.”

“The balance of hardships does not favor the taxpayer plaintiffs, either.”

“A preliminary injunction against the income tax surcharge is also disfavored as a matter of public policy.”

“The legislators’ opinion rests on a mistaken factual premise.”

“A major initiative like Proposition 208 probably does make the legislature’s policy-making job more complex and time-consuming. But that is not a problem a court can remedy. ”

“There would be no basis for preliminary relief from the income tax surcharge even if the plaintiffs had a real chance of success on the merits. ”

“This interpretation depends on imaginary commas inserted into the constitutional text.”

“So far the parties have offered only back-of-the-envelope calculations that are wholly inadequate even for a preliminary adjudication. ”

“As such, it would be insufficient to show that Proposition 208 is facially unconstitutional.”

“The plaintiffs’ prospects of success on the merits, on their challenge to the constitutionality of Proposition 208’s “mandatory grant” provisions, are unclear. They fall considerably short of that mark. ”

“The plaintiffs are not in a position to make that argument.”

“There is no question that the fundamental dispute in this case is political. The citizens on one side have policy views that differ from those of the legislators and citizens on the other side. ”

“To summarize: the plaintiffs have failed to show irreparable harm from Proposition 208’s spending provisions; the balance of hardships does not tip in the plaintiffs’ favor; and public policy does not favor preliminary relief.”

Where the money will go

The income from Prop. 208 will be distributed as follows:

50% as grants to hire teachers and classroom support personnel and increase base compensation for teachers and classroom support personnel.

25% as grants to hire student support services personnel and increasing base compensation for student support services personnel.

12% to the Career Training and Workforce Fund for tutoring, mentoring, counseling, mental health services for high school students, and hiring school counselors.

10% as grants to provide mentoring and retention programming for new classroom teachers.

3% to the Arizona Teachers Academy Fund, which was created to provide incentives and mentoring for students to become teachers.

In sum, the voters win and the Republicans lose. The judge did offer slim options for the reactionaries to continue their court case, but he said they would lose. Once again, the GOP effort to fight election and initiative outcomes has led to constant failure.