Saying a panel of lawmakers acted illegally, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled late Friday that the description they wrote of a proposal to permanently hike the state sales tax by a penny is biased.
The justices upheld a decision by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Rea that the Legislative Council, made up of lawmakers, did not comply with legal requirements that they prepare an "impartial'' analysis of every measure on the ballot. They said lawmakers need to rewrite the description or remove the offending provisions.
It remains unclear what the committee, dominated by Republicans, will do next.
Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, questioned the authority of the court to review the wording, much less order a rewrite. He suggested lawmakers should ignore the order.
But Biggs conceded all that would do is force Secretary of State, who is responsible for printing up the brochure with the ballot descriptions, to remove the language the court found wanting.
The fight is crucial because that brochure is mailed to the homes of all registered voters. It can become the basis on which some people decide whether to support or oppose each measure.
Voters approved a temporary one-cent hike in the state's 5.6 percent tax rate in 2010 as part of a plan to deal with a $3 billion deficit. That tax self-destructs on May 31, 2013.
Proposition 204 would impose an entirely new one-cent surcharge, effective June 1. And unlike the existing measure, the proceeds would be earmarked for specific purposes, mainly K-12 education but also health care for children and road construction.
Republican legislative leaders are opposed, as is Gov. Jan Brewer.
The issue arose because the GOP-dominated committee voted to describe the measure as a tax "increase.'' Biggs defended the move, saying it is an entirely new tax, pointing out that the rate will return to 5.6 percent automatically if the initiative fails.
Rea said lawmakers could describe the increase only if they put it in context. What that means, he said, is pointing out that if Proposition 204 were to pass, the effective tax rate on June 1 would be no different than the day before.
Supreme Court Justice Scott Bales, writing for his colleagues, said Rea did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the proposed description by the Legislative Council was not impartial. Biggs, however, said none of this is the court's business.
"They're not the ones to judge what the context is,'' he said. Biggs said the council was entitled to describe the levy as a tax increase on the 5.6 percent base rate.
"This is just judicial activism at its rankest,'' Biggs said.
Rea also ordered -- and the high court approved -- two other changes.
The judge said it was improper for lawmakers to single out the fact that the initiative contains no definition of who is an Arizona resident when explaining that some of the proceeds of the tax would be used to provide scholarships for residents. Rea said it appears the council decided to mention that in a bid to make people think that funds could end up aiding those not in this country legally.
Rea also said the council failed to accurately described what limits the initiative would have on the ability of lawmakers to make future changes to the sales tax system.
In a prepared statement, initiative organizer Ann-Eve Pedersen said the biased description was pushed by "anti-education legislators who want the power to continue cutting education funding.''
Mike McClellan posted at 6:57 pm on Fri, Aug 17, 2012.
Most revealing paragraph of the article? This one:
"Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, questioned the authority of the court to review the wording, much less order a rewrite. He suggested lawmakers should ignore the order."
Biggs -- who has liked to call himself an "originalist" when it comes to the Constitution -- blithely suggests the Republicans simply ignore the state Supreme Court.
Apparently, Biggs the "originalist" doesn't understand an original part of the state (and federal) constitution, that of checks and balances.
I guess Biggs is for the Constitution unless he's against it.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:49 pm on Fri, Aug 17, 2012.
Mike,
You've touched again on something. When we read about "Judicial Activism" we usuallly see a criticism that a judge has made new law as if they were seating in the legislature and not followed the constitution. The person speaking almost invariably is a conservative. When we see a judge praised for a ruling, the speaker can be either a liberal or a conservative. But the conservative will praise the ruling for avoiding judicial activism and for following the constitution. The liberal will just say the ruling makes sense.
But neither of them, not the conservative and not the liberal, will have studied both the ruling and the law [precedent] proceeding it. The best reading comes when studying Supreme Court rulings, either state for federal. Each side disputes the call of the other side. It's better reading that comic books, almost as good as was Mad Magazine![beam]
chatmandu002 posted at 9:21 pm on Fri, Aug 17, 2012.
Vote NO on the tax increase initiative.
vera_brown posted at 11:08 pm on Fri, Aug 17, 2012.
Offering online courses gives you more choices. For instance, a course may not be able to attract enough students at any one location to offer it, but can when students from all those locations are added together, find your field at High Speed Universities using their tool
Suelee posted at 5:14 am on Sat, Aug 18, 2012.
This tax was approved as a 3 year temporary tax to help schools with an unexpected decrease in funding due to the economy tanking. This was to allow schools to adjust to the NEW REALITY that the economy and home values were not going to return to the hyper-inflated levels of 2008. They have now had almost 3 years to adjust to this new reality. As a taxpayer, I cannot justify extending this tax.
downtownresident posted at 8:18 am on Sat, Aug 18, 2012.
Biggs is a whiner, and a big baby.
For him to whine about judicial activism is a travesty of justice.
These......these.......politicians, and I use the term with disgust and contempt for Biggs and his minions are a pimple on the rear of Arizona.
Andy, you're just a big baby, who whines and cries injustice when he doesn't get his ILLEGAL way sickens me.
Andy, you are a waste of skin. Is Russell Pearce your father????
chuckles3 posted at 5:25 pm on Mon, Aug 20, 2012.
'And unlike the existing measure, the proceeds would be earmarked for specific purposes, mainly K-12 education but also health care for children and road construction.'
Hmm...sounds like more than an education tax to me. Are our roads really in that bad a shape? And, with Obamacare, why do we need extra money for healthcare for children?
I will be voting 'no' for this slush fund for the unions.
samkat posted at 5:58 pm on Mon, Aug 20, 2012.
If it is lock box tax revenue that our trusty so called conservative legislators cannot raid, and it benefits public schools, I support it. I wonder if ole Andy was a part of the panel. :-)