Propositions 128, 129 and 132 would limit your power without fixing initiatives. Vote no
Invest in Education, a ballot initiative to tax the rich for schools, broke largely along partisan lines and won passage by less than 52% of the vote in 2020.
The income-tax increase got tossed by the courts before it could be enacted.
Republican lawmakers who were incensed at progressives for pushing the measure haven’t forgiven. Nor forgotten.
Their imprint of payback is glaring in three Legislature-referred ballot propositions that would rewrite the Arizona Constitution to curb the power of voters:
Proposition 128 gives state lawmakers the authority to change any citizen-led measure as they see fit if any portion of it is found by the courts to be unconstitutional or unlawful.
Proposition 129 limits citizen-led initiatives to a single subject and requires that subject to be spelled out in the title.
Proposition 132 requires that any initiative or referendum dealing with a tax increase be approved by 60% of voters to take effect.
We encourage a “no” vote on all three.
They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Read for yourself the arguments in support of the proposals.
Lawmakers can act without Proposition 128
Start with Proposition 128.
Backers, such as the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, lament that there’s currently “no simple mechanism to fix a broken measure, except to have it go back to the voters, a costly and confusing option.” Fair point.
They say Proposition 128 would uncuff lawmakers to help rescue voter-approved measures like Invest in Education that a judge or appellate court finds problematic.
If it were only so.
Lawmakers had no trouble responding to Invest in Ed. The GOP-led Legislature unilaterally killed the intent of Proposition 208 by cutting income tax rates so that high earners would not pay any more taxes than they are already – even before the courts found the measure largely unconstitutional.
Another view: Was taxing the rich worth it, now that the rich have their revenge?
In fact, the Legislature could have simply raised the ceiling on educational spending, as it has done in years past, and given life to Invest in Ed. Gov. Doug Ducey and GOP lawmakers purposely chose not to exercise that authority.
Read Proposition 128 more carefully and note that any finding of legal problems with a voter-approved measure – even minor points that, if struck, would still leave the bulk of the initiative intact – would allow the Legislature to also sweep funds from the measure and use them however they like.
Does that come across as doing the voters’ will?
Courts have stepped in without Proposition 129
Proposition 129 is more of the same shenanigans.
The same set of supporters claims the the state constitution should be amended to hold citizen groups to the same “single subject” or “adequate title” standard that binds the Arizona Legislature.
It’s a false argument.
Lawmakers, indeed, must follow the standard. Three of the Legislature’s Budget Reconciliation Bills were tossed by a judge last year for violating the adequate-title provision.
Not on the ballot: Court strikes measure to expand voter access
But their sole job is to legislate. They have months to adjust language on bills. They have staff and attorneys to help them research and adhere to rules.
Citizens aren’t afforded the same resources and time. But that doesn’t mean any petition initiated by them and signed by sufficient number of voters automatically qualifies for the ballot.
A number of them have been challenged in court and disqualified over omitted or misleading language in the proposition’s 100-word summary. That safeguard rebuts a key argument from supporters of Proposition 129: That it would prevent special-interest groups from jamming unrelated provisions into one measure to sneak in pet projects.
Don’t buy this nonsense that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Citizens needn’t be held to the same rigid lawmaking standard as fulltime legislators.
Proposition 132 carries unintended consequences
Lastly, there is Proposition 132, a well-intentioned but misguided effort to watch out for Arizona taxpayers.
We're sympathetic to the position that raising taxes should not be taken lightly. We’re certainly mindful of the divisive Invest in Education measure, which we opposed in 2020, that got us here.
Stuck filling out your ballot? How to vote confidently in key races
We also appreciate that Arizona voters in 2012 imposed a rigorous threshold for lawmakers – requiring a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers of the statehouse – to enact a tax increase.
That said, demanding more than a simple majority for voter-approved revenue measures is extreme. Only nine states require supermajority approval at the ballot box, four of them solely on constitutional amendments.
More importantly, let’s beware of unintended consequences.
Several key education-funding initiatives in Arizona’s history won with less than the 60% approval threshold that Proposition 132 imposes. Among them:
Proposition 203, aka First Things First, in 2006, which increased tobacco taxes to fund early childhood programs; and
Proposition 301, a six-tenths of a penny sales tax for education in 2000 that was championed by then-Republican Gov. Jane Hull and which Gov. Ducey and the Legislature saw fit to extend in 2018 for another two decades.
Is it fair or wise to trim voters' voice?
Given the ongoing debate about more money to attract and retain teachers – never mind the frustration over the Legislature’s tax cuts that repudiated voters’ will on Invest in Education – do we really want to restrict Arizonans’ ability to effect change? Or to reduce their voice?
Is that fair or wise?
The ballot initiative process isn’t perfect. Measures can come with unintended consequences. Protected financial measures can make it difficult to ensure funding for other priorities and budget holistically, especially when there are cuts to be made.
But these proposed “fixes” are bad faith attempts by lawmakers to assume greater power at the expense of the constituents they serve.
Vote “no” on Propositions 128, 129 and 132.
This is an opinion of The Arizona Republic’s editorial board.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Prop. 128, 129 and 132 would limit your power. Vote no
