An independent expenditure committee, the Committee Opposing Proposition 123, has been formed for the Vote No on Prop. 123 campaign. See a bare bones web page at www.noprop123.com. This is going to be a grassroots effort of individuals because businesses care more about receiving even more corporate welfare tax cuts than the education of Arizona’s children. “Prop. 123, more tax cuts for me!”
Arizona’s “education leaders” have already committed themselves to this bad settlement agreement in Cave Creek Unified School District et al. v. Ducey because our lawless Tea-Publican legislature and governor have said that this is the only deal they will get. If the Court orders them to pay a judgment for the full amount of restitution owed for the legislature’s theft of the school districts’ inflation adjustment funds, they will create a constitutional crisis by refusing to comply with the court’s order.
This is a unprecedented level of lawlessness that warrants impeachment, but the governor’s co-conspirators are the same people who would sit in judgment for impeachment. It is a breakdown of the constitutional democratic process that can only be remedied by the electoral defeat of Tea-Publicans in the legislature in November.
Some of the campaign themes revealed at a presentation last night include:
“Let’s fund education without stealing from our children’s future”
“No corporate tax cuts on the backs of our children”
“Graduation caps, not education funding cap”
Arizona Treasurer Jeff DeWit reportedly has contacted this committee and expressed an interest in working with them.
DeWit will be at Tucson’s Metropolitan Education Commission meeting on Wednesday, January 20, 4:00 p.m., at the Tucson Public Library, Lower Level Meeting Room, 101 N. Stone Ave., Tucson, AZ. Dewit has been vocal about his opposition to Prop 123. The full agenda of the meeting can be found at the MEC office at 930 E. Broadway, or call 670-0055. MEC can also be contacted by e-mail at metcom@theriver.com.
( correcting a bunch of typos in the earlier comment) The Republican leadership broke the law in 2010 by not paying what was owed and they were reelected. They were sued and they were reelected in 2012, 2104 and joined by a Gov who was not eager to pay. The voters are partially to blame for this problem. Why should we think that if Prop 123 fails schools will ever see a penny of what is owed? Those Republicans refused for 6 years to pay or settle the suit because they did not believe they owed anything will all get reelected again !in 2016 because large numbers of Arizonans do not VOTE. SO Prop 123 is all we have and the school desperately need the money to raise wages closers to what they should be. You have all seen the campaigns by fast food workers to get a $15 min wage. WELL a $15 min wage would be a raise for some first year TEACHERS in AZ. If you really value education- pass Prop 123 AND THEN VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT IN NOVEMBER and in 2017 amend the law and pass a budget that really puts education first.
The Republican leadership broke the law in 2010 by not paying what was owed and they were reelected. They were sues@ccdem.org and they were reelected in 2012, 2104 and joined by a Gov who was not eager to pay. The voters are partially to name for this problem. Why should we think that if Prop 123 fails schools will ever see a penny of what is owed? Those Republicans who refused for 6 years to pay or settle the suit because they did not believe they owed anything will all get reelected again because large numbers of Arizonans do not VOTE. SO Prop 123 is all we have and the school desperately need the money to raise wages closers to what they should be. You have all seen the campaigns by fast food workers to get a $15 min wage. WELL a $15 min wage would be a raise for some first year TEACHERS in AZ. If you really value education- pass Prop 123 AND THEN VOTE THE BAST ARDSLEY OUT IN NOVEMBER and in 2017 amend the law and pass a budget that fealty puts education first.
Ducey’s Choice is Sophie’s Choice redux. David Safier explained the awful choice that was unnecessary and a moral burden on the voters.
The preceding comments are a perfect illustration of how well-meaning persons, passionate supporters of public education, will end up voting on Prop 123 in different ways. See my earlier post at
1,2,3,Tax Breaks For Me. BTW: Let’s keep my original slogan. Tax “cuts” has some positive appeal. Let’s call them what they are.
I have tried several times to reach the noprop123 to see how I can help and there is no one answering the request. If we really are going to make a go of this, time is of the essence.
It is telling that then Treasurer Ducey had his hand in Prop 118 which amended the constitution to pay out the 2.5% that has shorted the schools ever since.
Now he markets himself as a hero by giving the schools the money that is theirs to begin with.
When Prop 123 fails and the legislature still refuses to release the funds they currently have available for the schools, the students should sue them.
If Prop 123 were just a bad deal, I’d vote for it enthusiastically. I don’t like being in the position of encouraging people to vote against education funding. The problem is that it isn’t just a bad deal, it’s a bad deal that amends the constitution to limit future K-12 spending and spends money already promised to future students. I was ready to accept it until I saw the list of reasons the legislature could choose to void inflation increases and choose to lower the base level for subsequent years. Those inflation increases are a backstop against the malfeasance of the majority in the legislature and we can’t let go of them lightly. The price of 123 is just too high.
It is easy to snipe at the education leaders when none of them thought this was a great deal, or even that good. But given the reality of continued expensive litigation, students going more years without support they are legally entitled to, and the political reality that Ducey and Biggs are in power and were unlikely to do what really needs to be done, legally and morally, the leaders agreed. So please Blue Meanie, get a different majority in each least one side of the legislature, and maybe a different outcome is possible. But even with that option we could look like Pennsylvania who still don’t have a 2015 school budget based on worse political dynamics.
This “settlement” allows our lawless Tea-Publican legislature to complete a double theft. First they stole the inflation adjustment funds owed to school districts under Prop. 3o1 — a measure submitted to the ballot, by the way, by the legislature — they made a promise that they breached. The voters approved Prop. 301 which means it is subject to the Voter Protection Act — it takes a 3/4 vote of the legislature to amend it and then only in furtherance of the measure.
Prop. 123 is not in furtherance of Prop. 301, it seeks to gut it and provides new economic triggers so that it will possibly not apply in the future. The money that you think the school districts will be getting may be an illusory promise depending on what the economy does, and it isn’t looking promising.
The state will reach into the school districts’ own money, the state land trust, to pay less than 2/3 of a valid court judgment for current year budget and to avoid another valid judgment for previous years that could exceed $1.3 billion. State Treasurer Jeff DeWit makes a valid argument that future generations of students will suffer from the diminishing of the trust assets. And our education leaders have agreed to this double theft because our lawless Tea-Publican legislature threatens to create a constitutional crisis by refusing the lawful orders of a coequal branch of government by refusing to pay a valid judgment. As a lawyer I cannot condone such lawlessness.
Governor Ducey recently started a Twitter campaign to shame deadbeat dad’s who are in arrears in child support. I would suggest this campaign should apply to our #deadbeat judgment debtor # lawless legislature.