Arizona Judge Tosses Teachers’ Union Tax Hike

 

While the presidential election got the most press, Arizona’s 2020 ballot had a proposition that made tax-cutters and fans of limited government very concerned. The electorate trended left that day, sending gun-grabber Mark Kelly to the Senate, giving five of nine congressional seats to the Dems, and approving Proposition 208, a tax-the-rich scheme pushed by ever-greedy teachers’ unions. Less than one percent of the campaign’s funding came from in-state sources.

The law imposed a 3.5% tax surcharge on taxable annual income over $250,000 for single persons or married persons filing separately, or $500,000 for married persons filing jointly or heads of households, to increase funding for public education. This nearly doubled the state’s highest tax rate. At the same time, it turned Arizona from one of the lowest-taxed states in the country to one of the highest.

As Californians fled to the east, they noticed Prop 208 and drove right through Arizona. Why settle a business in the Grand Canyon State if they’ll just have to move again in a few years?

There was, however, another problem with the proposition: it was unconstitutional.

Today, justice was served. State-based stalwarts at the Goldwater Institute took Prop 208 to court. The bench agreed the initiative violated the state Constitution’s restrictions on spending and taxation and barred enforcement of the law.

“Today’s decision puts a nail in the coffin of the unconstitutional, job-killing Proposition 208, and it cements Arizona’s position as the national leader in lower taxes and building a stronger economy,” said Victor Riches, President and CEO of the Goldwater Institute.

Last year, Gov. Doug Ducey signed a massive income tax reduction and simplified the tax code. With that 2021 victory and today’s win, Arizona is again one of the lowest-taxed states in the nation.

Published in Economics, Law
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 7 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Touch screen. How is it unconstitutional? 

    • #1
  2. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Touch screen. How is it unconstitutional?

    It concerns tax and spending limits set by the State of Arizona legislature.

    In August, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 208 would violate the state Constitution if the revenue exceeded the spending limit. The court then sent it to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah to determine if spending would surpass the cap.

    “This Court understands the remand order as a direction to declare Proposition 208 unconstitutional in its entirety, and to enjoin its operation permanently, if the Court finds as a fact that the annual education spending limits imposed by the Arizona Constitution will prevent Arizona’s public schools from spending a ‘material’ amount of Proposition 208 tax revenue in 2023,” Hannah found. “On that basis, the Court is obligated to strike down Proposition 208.”

    • #2
  3. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Danka

    • #3
  4. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Touch screen. How is it unconstitutional?

    Yeah for the Supreme Court and the AZ constitution. Now, can they fix their broken electoral process?

    • #4
  5. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    How is it Thank you was automatically corrected to touch screen?  Sheesh.

    • #5
  6. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.: As Californians fled to the east, they noticed Prop 208 and drove right through Arizona. Why settle a business in the Grand Canyon State if they’ll just have to move again in a few years?

    You would think living in the same state as Jon would be enough incentive to stay . . .

    • #6
  7. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Stad (View Comment):

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.: As Californians fled to the east, they noticed Prop 208 and drove right through Arizona. Why settle a business in the Grand Canyon State if they’ll just have to move again in a few years?

    You would think living in the same state as Jon would be enough incentive to stay . . .

    Yes sir, it is easily worth $17500 per year for any couple to cohabitate in the same State as Jon Gabriel. But it would be a heck of a lot cheaper to just be in the same state as Jon Gabriel ( state of mind, that is). Or, maybe not.

    • #7
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.